[_heimdall]

Do you really want the government being deeply involved in how every company defines and enforces their own terms of use?

In this case I'm not sure why Google would pull Organic Maps. That doesn't mean we need the government playing a role in defining ever company's terms of service, deciding when they're broken, and enforcing the punishment. How would that even scale?

[graemep]

They already are. Most countries have consumer laws that limit terms and conditions. The same in many other areas (residential renting in many countries, exclusions for negligence that causes injuries or death,....).

Most countries have competition laws that also restrict what companies can do. That is the point here. We need need government intervention when the market lacks competition.

[_heimdall]

Maybe I misread the GP comment, but there is a big difference in governments defining guard rails for what isn't allowed in any T&Cs and governments being involved directly in every T&Cs.

[graemep]

Yes, but providing fair appeals does not require the government to be involved in evert T & C, just requiring things such as approvals be carried out impartially, and with some channel of appeal.

Something like an Ombudsman scheme for app stores would do it.

[_heimdall]

That seems reasonable enough. Down with governments and regulations and all that nonsense, but in reality I don't see a problem with governments setting reasonable guard rails for what any T&Cs can or must include.

[palata]

It's exactly how it works. If some behaviour is anti-competitive, it is the role of the government to correct it.

> In this case I'm not sure why Google would pull Organic Maps.

Exactly. Someone competent should decide whether that is an anti-competitive move or not. Noting that a "mistake" may be anti-competitive and may deserve a fine.

That someone is a government.

[_heimdall]

I may have just misunderstood the GP. I read it as wanting the government to directly work on defining and enforcing Google's terms of service rather than this being an anticompetitive concern.

[phyzix5761]

But its Google's marketplace... not The Marketplace

[palata]

Not sure what your point is...

[phyzix5761]

My point is why should the government regulate a private marketplace? If its not working for you go sell your stuff somewhere else. Google pays to keep the Play Store lights on. They should have every right to decide who sells on their platform.

People saying that Google shouldn't be allowed to decide who can or can't sell on their platform is like saying someone should have every right to sell their wares from your front porch; even though you're the owner of the property, you pay for living there, and don't want them selling their stuff on your land.

The public marketplace is a different story. If Google prevents you from selling somewhere else then the government needs to get involved because this is anti competitive behavior.

[wkat4242]

But Google has a de facto Monopoly on android. For monopolies there's different rules. Very similar to how Microsoft and Google have been hit before eg with the browser and search selection screens. The free market doesn't really work if there's only one player.

[phyzix5761]

What monopoly? Android belongs to them. They spent billions of dollars building it. A monopoly would be if they owned the only means of creating and running a cellphone operating system and prevented others from doing the same.

Goes back to my analogy of a random person selling stuff on my porch. I paid for this house and I pay the taxes on the land. If I don't want you selling your stuff here then you need to get out.

[palata]

Right. I guess we just fundamentally disagree on what "anti-competitive" means.

The problem in this case is not that Google should be forced to "sell" stuff they don't want to sell. The problem is that Google takes advantage of the fact that they are in practice the only marketplace to sell their own goods (here Google Maps or Waze) and prevent competitors from reaching an audience (here Organic Maps).

And your comparison is very limited anyway, because Google is not selling stuff on their front porch. They are distributing software to billions of devices. It's a very different situation.

[phyzix5761]

But the infrastructure and software to do any of these things (Android for example) belongs to them. They pay for it and maintain it.

Imagine you wrote an application and you choose who you want to partner with. You agree on what that partner can and can't do. Now, someone else comes along and says you must partner with them and they should be allowed to do whatever they want in your app. Are you saying you have to comply? Even if you're the one absorbing all of the cost and you don't agree with the content?

If so, please let me know where you live so I can come set up my business from your house. It's going to save me so much money since you have to take all the financial risk of paying for my utility usage, plumbing, internet, etc. And I can tap into all the connections you've made over the years living there.

Edit: Google does not have a monopoly on cellphone OSes or app marketplaces. There are numerous others and anyone is free to create their own. You just have to spend the billions of dollars they spent to make yours as popular.

[shaky-carrousel]

Yes, I absolutely do, thanks.

[_heimdall]

How would you see that scaling? Are you talking about governments defining what can't be in any terms of service? Or would you prefer to see governments directly working to both define Google's rules, determining when an app breaks them, and having the government decide when to pull an app?

[uberman]

Does any company like google offer support or dispute resolution that "scales"?

[_heimdall]

I would assume so, yes. There must be at least a few meeting the bar of "any."