| > It is ABSOLUTELY a regulator and a court system running wild. That's the whole point here. Well that's stepped up significantly, the regulator and the legal system running wild. The courts offer a way of checking if the fine should really have been issued, and it should. In response to this you suggest unchecked sanctions applied to completely different industries. > The commission narrowly defines a mobile OS market and excludes Apple through a selective description of these markets. Seems extremely simple to me that these things are distinct based on the restrictions we're talking about. Google may have been able to tie everything together if only they made and manufactured their own phones. I'm not even sure that including apple would help much since Android has an 80% market share. > Individuals on the committee The regulator and the court involved in the appeal? > As far as scientific advancement goes, you're hopefully smart enough to realize the contributions of all the intelligent work done not just at Google, but in the private sector at large And anti-competitive practices hurt the private sector. Competition has been fundamental to the dramatic progress made, and I don't think that google trying to stop people building phones with different OS's on them is beneficial. Compete on merits, rather than "might makes right", in my opinion. Google was, for example, controlling what versions of android manufacturers could put on their devices if they wanted any devices they made to have the Play Store. That does not to me seem like a good thing. |
From my original comment : “ the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. ” in other words, speaking about the European entities including the commission, unelected bureaucrats running agencies as well as the history of successive CJEU rulings usurping the authority of the legislative branch to deem international agreements invalid for exceedingly silly reasons when said legislature undertook successive acts guaranteeing the flow of data between the EU and the US.
If you’re not well informed about the situation in the EU and are winging your argument based on our exchange alone with no appetite or curiosity to educate yourself, it’s pathetic and you can fuck right off.
>Google was, for example, controlling what versions of android manufacturers could put on their devices if they wanted any devices they made to have the Play Store. That does not to me seem like a good thing.
Have you worked in the phone industry? Set foot in a single physical phone store that’s not an Apple Store for more than a tourist visit? Do you know the kind of bait and switch that’s out there for these exact agreements to be formalized into legal documents?
The history of abuse, scams, deliberate overzealous marketing leading to shitty consumer experiences through fragmentation is what those documents address. You know this as well as anyone out there.
You can’t just run a phone company that sells the new A1.5573 Play store model(limited stock, ie 100s only manufactured during a lifetime) while selling the A1.5573e non play store model and confuse your customers by having all your marketing showing the play store phone with the play store apps with the device ID in fine print at the bottom of a 40x40 billboard.
Read the fucking conclusions of the court at least before making stupid statements like “competition on merits, hurr durr”. The court found the commission in violation of preserving the defence the right to be heard by denying them access to evidence and repeatedly so. They actually upheld googles appeal on this count and found the revenue share agreements that underlie the play store install issue to be non abusive.
Again. Fucking read. God gave you the fucking sense to do so and you’re not cattle.