DoJ, Antitrust and Google

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,434
5,693
118
Australia
The cost of entry is not so high as to prevent all but 3 companies existing in the smartphone space. Fewer than exist in the TV or gaming console markets? Or computer manufacturers? And for a product which almost everybody in a wealthy country has? That's not realism; that's accepting an anti-competitive status quo.
There are more than three companies making smartphones. What there isn’t is more than three operating systems for them: iOS, Android and Windows Phone (assuming that one hasn’t quietly died). Android is probably the only reason that Apple doesn’t have complete hegemony in the market because they built the operating environment and made it open source like it’s Linux/Unix based desktop contemporaries so that any Tom, Dick and Harry could put it on their handset.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,921
864
118
Country
United States
They don't actually havea monopoly though.


TheMysteriousGX gets it.
Yes, they do.

.

"The report says Google enjoys a monopoly in search and search advertising, and its dominance is protected by its own data and deals it has struck around the world to be the default search engine in many browsers and devices. "No alternative search engine serves as a substitute," investigators said. "
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,045
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
Yes, they do.

.

"The report says Google enjoys a monopoly in search and search advertising, and its dominance is protected by its own data and deals it has struck around the world to be the default search engine in many browsers and devices. "No alternative search engine serves as a substitute," investigators said. "
Yea, still not seeing it because we actually DO have other options and it isn't Google's fault the other options suck. Instead of encouraging others to improve their sucky products, you are saying to punish google to make theirs worse so other's can compete. That is BS and only hurts consumers.

All Windows operating systems = Microsoft default browser and search engines= Most popular PC operating system
ALL Samsung phones = Samsung internet= Most popular phones.

I don't see that description as being accurate because people switch their own products by choice. Punishing the people who make a better product is a terrible precedent, and the opposite of the intent behind the law. The intent is to bring people better products by promoting competition. That does the opposite.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,213
6,485
118
There are more than three companies making smartphones. What there isn’t is more than three operating systems for them: iOS, Android and Windows Phone (assuming that one hasn’t quietly died).
I think Windows Phone still exists on legacy smartphones. Otherwise, gone.

Theoretically, there's no reason one of the big boys in the smartphone world like Huawei couldn't make their own, possibly in conjunction with someone more software orientated like Baidu. There's a big risk, however, because it would also need the investment to create a large number of apps to go with it at the point of release - utilities, games, etc. because it's borderline inconceivable customers would choose a phone that didn't have them. Because of this, market entry for a new smartphone OS is a nightmare. Windows Phone is an object example of how even a company with the right skills, an existing base to draw on and the financial muscle can struggle.
 

Iron

BOI
Sep 6, 2013
1,741
259
88
Country
Occupied Palestine
I think Windows Phone still exists on legacy smartphones. Otherwise, gone.

Theoretically, there's no reason one of the big boys in the smartphone world like Huawei couldn't make their own, possibly in conjunction with someone more software orientated like Baidu. There's a big risk, however, because it would also need the investment to create a large number of apps to go with it at the point of release - utilities, games, etc. because it's borderline inconceivable customers would choose a phone that didn't have them. Because of this, market entry for a new smartphone OS is a nightmare. Windows Phone is an object example of how even a company with the right skills, an existing base to draw on and the financial muscle can struggle.
Android runs on buffed linux, Apple on its own type of OS. There was an attempt with Windows OS.
Look here, three major OS in the entire world of computing - linux, apple, windows. You noticed the example of the windows phone, it crashed and burned. At least you can be comforted in that the base for linux is entirely open code and free for all. Theoretically you could create and run a new OS based on linux.
Computing is a small world. Check out chip manufacturers, a handful of large dominant companies. Samsung, Nvidia, Intel, TSMC and a few more.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,213
6,485
118
Theoretically you could create and run a new OS based on linux.

Computing is a small world. Check out chip manufacturers, a handful of large dominant companies. Samsung, Nvidia, Intel, TSMC and a few more.

A quick look at the microchip manufacturing world reveals a welter of companies with substantial market share. Intel and Samsung are well ahead (although of course this is chips across all devices, and many chip makers are specialised to certain devices), but there are a lot of others in the game.

There are basically just two phone OSes. It's all well and good to say you can just adapt Linux and make a new one, but if it were that easy, why doesn't anyone? I mean, that's the idea of how things are supposed to work: there are vast profits theoretically available, so people should be trying to get a slice of the action. Then why aren't they? The reality is surely that getting into the market is very expensive and difficult. Companies that might theoretically like the idea are taking a look and deciding it's not worth it.
 

Iron

BOI
Sep 6, 2013
1,741
259
88
Country
Occupied Palestine

A quick look at the microchip manufacturing world reveals a welter of companies with substantial market share. Intel and Samsung are well ahead (although of course this is chips across all devices, and many chip makers are specialised to certain devices), but there are a lot of others in the game.

There are basically just two phone OSes. It's all well and good to say you can just adapt Linux and make a new one, but if it were that easy, why doesn't anyone? I mean, that's the idea of how things are supposed to work: there are vast profits theoretically available, so people should be trying to get a slice of the action. Then why aren't they? The reality is surely that getting into the market is very expensive and difficult. Companies that might theoretically like the idea are taking a look and deciding it's not worth it.
Android is a spiritual successor to linux in the phone OS market. It is open-code as well. The reason why nobody "breaks the market" is that there is no big player right now that would be interested (I could see amazon doing this in the future for fun). Google is sponsoring Android dev as well.
edit: There's also no real reason to replace Android right now. It's comfy af.

bro TSMC isn't mentioned in the link, am I having a stroke? Do they work under a different name because they're based in Taiwan?
 
Last edited:

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,921
864
118
Country
United States
Yea, still not seeing it because we actually DO have other options and it isn't Google's fault the other options suck. Instead of encouraging others to improve their sucky products, you are saying to punish google to make theirs worse so other's can compete. That is BS and only hurts consumers.

All Windows operating systems = Microsoft default browser and search engines= Most popular PC operating system
ALL Samsung phones = Samsung internet= Most popular phones.

I don't see that description as being accurate because people switch their own products by choice. Punishing the people who make a better product is a terrible precedent, and the opposite of the intent behind the law. The intent is to bring people better products by promoting competition. That does the opposite.
Google has too much political, and economic power. Any company with this much market share and power shouldn't exist. The current CEO is a CCP shill who kowtows to them for money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ender910