Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Maybe the formatting wasn't entirely clear, but "licensable smart mobile operating systems" and "app stores for the Android mobile operating system" are two different categories.

As for the latter being a thing but Apple not getting into trouble for their iOS App Store monopoly, I guess that is because Apple isn't using that "dominant position" to prop up a dominant position in another market (like Google is propping up their dominance in search engines).

Or maybe the overall consumer harm is considered to be much smaller, considering that Android has 80% smart mobile device market share in Europe (according to the EC press release), and iOS has a much smaller share.




going after google but not apple sets a weird lesson. That lesson is: don't be in the "licensable smart mobile operating system" market.

I'm not sure if this is an outcome I want.


No, the lesson is don't use your dominance to unfairly promote yourself. Do you guys really find this confusing?


I believe even if that lesson is set, it would be beneficial. As it leaves a space open for another player in smart mobile operating system -- in turn creates more competition in the market. By giving Android for free, the market stayed duopoly.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: