7 ms·

> How is the Play Store related to the Google Seach app or to Chrome? - They're not, and the attempt to claim they are part of a mobile "suite" is the same sor

> How is the Play Store related to the Google Seach app or to Chrome? - They're not, and the attempt to claim they are part of a mobile "suite" is the same sort of obfuscation Microsoft used when they argued a web browser (IE) was an essential part of a desktop OS. This ruling seems obvious to me.

endorphone 8y ago
So good of you to cut right through the nuance. But of course to an Android buyer, it is all a part of the experience with the device. They know what to expect and what is there. "he same sort of obfuscation Microsoft used when they argued a web browser" And Microsoft was right. Windows has Explorer or Edge. It still does. The EU giant fine did absolutely nothing but made them realize that cashing in big on American companies is essentially free. Of course I still download Firefox, just as you can do on Android.
- stingraycharles 8y ago
  “But of course to an Android buyer, it is all a part of the experience with the device. They know what to expect and what is there.” The problem is that by not giving the choice makes this anti-competitive behaviour. What’s wrong with giving Samsung the ability to make a deal with Yahoo to install Yahoo as the default in their Android phones? If they claim it’s all part of their integrated experience, then they should provide the necessary APIs/SDKs for other search providers to integrate properly. We’ve been over this before, it’s anti-competitive behaviour, and it lacks choice.
- bad_user 8y ago
  > But of course to an Android buyer, it is all a part of the experience with the device. Only if the device is advertised as being an Android, which is a trademark that you cannot use without Google’s agreement. You can’t use anything Google related actually, besides AOSP, so I don’t see how Google can make that argument with a straight face. And on Microsoft... they could easily block any competition just like Apple is doing on iOS. That you are able to install Firefox on it, be thankful to previous antitrust fines they got ;-)
shawabawa3 8y ago
> same sort of obfuscation Microsoft used when they argued a web browser (IE) was an essential part of a desktop OS How is a web browser not an essential part of a desktop OS. Literally every single consumer operating system comes bundled with a web browser, and in fact everyone bundles their own OSX: Safari ChromeOS: Chrome Windows: Edge
- dataflow 8y ago
  "Essential" and "useful" are not the same thing. A web browser isn't an essential part of a desktop OS the same way a network card isn't an essential part of a computer. Even though network cards come with most computers due to frequently being useful, they're not essential to the computer being a computer... computers can very much come without them, which people occasionally also find useful. Also, times have changed, and the web has become a far bigger part of people's life than it used to be.
  - ModernMech 8y ago
    > A web browser isn't an essential part of a desktop OS That's so 1997. I would argue that a desktop OS isn't essential to my web browser. All I want my phone or my desktop computer for is to browse the web (not me but that's true for the vast majority of people). All this nonsense that comes with the OS is peripheral. Not essential. The only thing my phone or desktop needs to do is turn on, connect to the web, and download facebook.com and any other website I want. That's it. That's essential. Network card: essential. Web browser: essential. Any so-called computer without a network card is as good as a brick to me.
    - csydas 8y ago
      I believe that this does not really address what "essential" means in this argument, and I find you're both arguing the same point but semantically disagreeing. The idea of a Web Browser being "essential" to an OS is to mean that the OS itself would not be complete without this specific browser, which is in fact not true. Whatever combination of OS + browser you elect to use, or of you eschew the common OS parts in favor of it being entirely browser based is your choice. That is the contention when Google, and also when Microsoft, try to claim that their respective browsers are essential to their OSes. (Before anyone tries to call me out, yes, Apple is just as silly with iOS, but at least they attempt to have some very fragile ground to stand on regarding performance) So the argument isn't that a web browser isn't essential to modern day computing, it's that the OS itself does not need a built in one to be complete, or any specific browser to realize its goal of being an OS.

endorphone 8y ago

So good of you to cut right through the nuance. But of course to an Android buyer, it is all a part of the experience with the device. They know what to expect and what is there. "he same sort of obfuscation Microsoft used when they argued a web browser" And Microsoft was right. Windows has Explorer or Edge. It still does. The EU giant fine did absolutely nothing but made them realize that cashing in big on American companies is essentially free. Of course I still download Firefox, just as you can do on Android.

stingraycharles 8y ago
“But of course to an Android buyer, it is all a part of the experience with the device. They know what to expect and what is there.” The problem is that by not giving the choice makes this anti-competitive behaviour. What’s wrong with giving Samsung the ability to make a deal with Yahoo to install Yahoo as the default in their Android phones? If they claim it’s all part of their integrated experience, then they should provide the necessary APIs/SDKs for other search providers to integrate properly. We’ve been over this before, it’s anti-competitive behaviour, and it lacks choice.
bad_user 8y ago
> But of course to an Android buyer, it is all a part of the experience with the device. Only if the device is advertised as being an Android, which is a trademark that you cannot use without Google’s agreement. You can’t use anything Google related actually, besides AOSP, so I don’t see how Google can make that argument with a straight face. And on Microsoft... they could easily block any competition just like Apple is doing on iOS. That you are able to install Firefox on it, be thankful to previous antitrust fines they got ;-)

shawabawa3 8y ago

> same sort of obfuscation Microsoft used when they argued a web browser (IE) was an essential part of a desktop OS How is a web browser not an essential part of a desktop OS. Literally every single consumer operating system comes bundled with a web browser, and in fact everyone bundles their own OSX: Safari ChromeOS: Chrome Windows: Edge

dataflow 8y ago
"Essential" and "useful" are not the same thing. A web browser isn't an essential part of a desktop OS the same way a network card isn't an essential part of a computer. Even though network cards come with most computers due to frequently being useful, they're not essential to the computer being a computer... computers can very much come without them, which people occasionally also find useful. Also, times have changed, and the web has become a far bigger part of people's life than it used to be.
- ModernMech 8y ago
  > A web browser isn't an essential part of a desktop OS That's so 1997. I would argue that a desktop OS isn't essential to my web browser. All I want my phone or my desktop computer for is to browse the web (not me but that's true for the vast majority of people). All this nonsense that comes with the OS is peripheral. Not essential. The only thing my phone or desktop needs to do is turn on, connect to the web, and download facebook.com and any other website I want. That's it. That's essential. Network card: essential. Web browser: essential. Any so-called computer without a network card is as good as a brick to me.
  - csydas 8y ago
    I believe that this does not really address what "essential" means in this argument, and I find you're both arguing the same point but semantically disagreeing. The idea of a Web Browser being "essential" to an OS is to mean that the OS itself would not be complete without this specific browser, which is in fact not true. Whatever combination of OS + browser you elect to use, or of you eschew the common OS parts in favor of it being entirely browser based is your choice. That is the contention when Google, and also when Microsoft, try to claim that their respective browsers are essential to their OSes. (Before anyone tries to call me out, yes, Apple is just as silly with iOS, but at least they attempt to have some very fragile ground to stand on regarding performance) So the argument isn't that a web browser isn't essential to modern day computing, it's that the OS itself does not need a built in one to be complete, or any specific browser to realize its goal of being an OS.