cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/48969583
Google…
🔸required Android makers to pre-install Search & Chrome for Play Store access
🔸paid manufacturers exclusively
🔸blocked other Android versions
Less competition = fewer choices for users.
At Murena, we propose a full ecosystem without vendor lock-in. Your data, your choice.
👉 Read the full article by BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgj0pp5p62o?app-referrer=deep-link
I definitely think Google is guilty of what the Commission has accused them of here, but I also can’t help but think: if pre-installing Google Search and Chrome are anti-competitive, why is Apple not guilty of the same thing? In fact, I’d argue that Apple is ten times worse in this regard because you actually can’t use any browser but Safari on iOS (all other browser apps are actually just re-skins of Safari under the hood). Does being a vertically-integrated company excuse such behaviour?
If you are old enough you might remember a similar fine for those nice search bars everyone was getting by default all over the place with every driver install and every program you downloaded. That was a fun time too!
Google was found to have paid manufacturers and telecoms to have Google search and Chrome pre-installed, and further enforced this by blocking access to its Play Store if they didn’t comply. Finally, it prohibited manufacturers from offering other versions of Android, again by threatening to ban access to its apps.
The only reason Apple isn’t also fined here is that they build and sell their own hardware, so they don’t have to force anyone to play by their rules - because they’re the only ones on the field…
Apple has been fined several times for abuse of dominant position though, and will surely be fined again since they continue to do it and profit massively from it.
They don’t license out their operating system to other companies or ever claimed it was open
They may be guilty of similar things, but not quite the same