Legally, yes. Dictating the rules for software on your own hardware is entirely legal, and extremely common.
Using your market position to dictate a cabal of other manufacturers’ rules on their hardware is anticompetitive. They’re using their market dominance with the play store to mandate a variety of hardware decisions and software decisions.
That’s incorrect. There are multiple requirements, both hardware and software, to be able to ship with the play store. That’s the monopoly they’re abusing, and that’s what Epic is suing for.
One example (of many) where their requirements have directly impacted the growth of a market is refresh rate. Android ereaders are excellent devices, but because of Google’s arbitrary limitations, devices until recently (when the technology they impeded with their monopoly developed far enough to meet that restriction) were forced to require users to jump through multiple extremely convoluted hoops to enable the play store.
This made them almost entirely inaccessible to normal end users and almost certainly played a huge role in the availability of options. That’s textbook anticompetitive.
It’s not the only restriction, just the first to come to mind.
I honestly don’t understand anything you said. There’s a refresh rate requirement for Android? And the refresh rate requirement made it convoluted for people to enable the Play Store?
The play store is their monopoly that they abuse. There’s a refresh rate requirement to distribute your device with the play store.
Otherwise, the user has to go to a Google website page from the device, sign into a Google account, and copy paste serial information of the device in order to be allowed to install the store. That’s not something normal customers can do, and it massively impeded the growth of the Android reader space.
There’s a refresh rate requirement to distribute your device with the play store.
Is there? I’ve seen lots of Android e-readers that are way less. Maybe just because they’re Chinese and don’t give a shit. Presumably that requirement is to ensure a positive experience for Android users. Android is obviously not intended to be used for e-readers.
Regardless, a limitation of your OS is absolutely not in any way more anti-competitive than not distributing an OS at all. I feel like this is pretty straightforward…
You have to manually enable the play store on all of those devices. It’s why they’re so niche and only made by Chinese companies.
It’s not in any way a limitation of the OS. It’s a business decision that is using their market position as the only source of most Android apps in order to control what manufacturers are able to make and sell.
And again, your core concept isn’t just flawed. It completely lacks understanding of what antitrust is. You can make decisions that only affect your own hardware. You cannot claim to be open and use that “openness” to make yourself the standard, then use that market position to pick winners and losers between your “partners” using that product, especially when you’re also one of them. That’s anticompetitive. Google wants all the benefits of being “open” while completely dictating the entire market.
Legally, yes. Dictating the rules for software on your own hardware is entirely legal, and extremely common.
Using your market position to dictate a cabal of other manufacturers’ rules on their hardware is anticompetitive. They’re using their market dominance with the play store to mandate a variety of hardware decisions and software decisions.
You’re dictating the ToU of your software. They have zero control over others’ hardware.
That’s incorrect. There are multiple requirements, both hardware and software, to be able to ship with the play store. That’s the monopoly they’re abusing, and that’s what Epic is suing for.
What are the hardware requirements?
One example (of many) where their requirements have directly impacted the growth of a market is refresh rate. Android ereaders are excellent devices, but because of Google’s arbitrary limitations, devices until recently (when the technology they impeded with their monopoly developed far enough to meet that restriction) were forced to require users to jump through multiple extremely convoluted hoops to enable the play store.
This made them almost entirely inaccessible to normal end users and almost certainly played a huge role in the availability of options. That’s textbook anticompetitive.
It’s not the only restriction, just the first to come to mind.
I honestly don’t understand anything you said. There’s a refresh rate requirement for Android? And the refresh rate requirement made it convoluted for people to enable the Play Store?
The play store is their monopoly that they abuse. There’s a refresh rate requirement to distribute your device with the play store.
Otherwise, the user has to go to a Google website page from the device, sign into a Google account, and copy paste serial information of the device in order to be allowed to install the store. That’s not something normal customers can do, and it massively impeded the growth of the Android reader space.
Is there? I’ve seen lots of Android e-readers that are way less. Maybe just because they’re Chinese and don’t give a shit. Presumably that requirement is to ensure a positive experience for Android users. Android is obviously not intended to be used for e-readers.
Regardless, a limitation of your OS is absolutely not in any way more anti-competitive than not distributing an OS at all. I feel like this is pretty straightforward…
You have to manually enable the play store on all of those devices. It’s why they’re so niche and only made by Chinese companies.
It’s not in any way a limitation of the OS. It’s a business decision that is using their market position as the only source of most Android apps in order to control what manufacturers are able to make and sell.
And again, your core concept isn’t just flawed. It completely lacks understanding of what antitrust is. You can make decisions that only affect your own hardware. You cannot claim to be open and use that “openness” to make yourself the standard, then use that market position to pick winners and losers between your “partners” using that product, especially when you’re also one of them. That’s anticompetitive. Google wants all the benefits of being “open” while completely dictating the entire market.