FairSearch to EU: Google’s Android A ‘Trojan Horse’ to Dominate Mobile Markets - Polidicks

Microsoft got attacked for things like Microsoft Office's "free trial" on new windows installs converting your files to the newest format, forcing you to shell out 3 digits if you wanted to see your files again. Or in IE's case, the world had... 3 browsers. IE, Netscape, and one other... I forget the other. Regardless, browsers were rare and so visibility to consumers was important. Many [I]many[/I] people weren't aware that "internet explorer" wasn't "just a program" to get on the internet, they thought it [I]was[/I] the internet, which was the problem. In the case of smartphones though, things are different. No longer are people oblivious that you can get new stuff on your phone. Fuck you can thank apple for this because had they not popularized the "app store" and "apps" and "downloading apps" and "angry birds" and shit, then nothing would have changed. But now there are advertisements [I]everywhere.[/I] People [I]know[/I] you can get more apps off the net, so people are far far [I]far[/I] more likely to go "huh, Im kinda done with google maps. What else is there?" and shit, Google even facilitates the ability to find other apps. It doesn't make Google maps impossible to remove, and it doesn't hide and dodge aroudn the idea of you not liking its apps and replacing them. Android phones have Google stuff on them because they come with Android. But most carriers have their own suite of shit apps that they tack on as well, and theirs [I]are[/I] impossible to remove without rooting the device and prying them out by force. Licensing android below cost or at cost allows the price of handhelds to be far lower than the competition, making handhelds more accessible to the public. If they are financially capable of doing so, let them do so. If you want more market share, make and market a better product. Microsoft, you especially are disappointing in this, you have the financial capability of a small nation yet you still can't make a product that matches up with Google. You've hated the idea of cheap or free software since your fucking conception and the thought of someone releasing a superior or competing product for a reasonable price (or in linux's case, no price at all) just [I]pisses you off, doesn't it?[/I]

[QUOTE=Murkrow;40244642]Well Microsoft was forced into adding browserchoice.eu on Windows, I wouldn't be surprised if Google gets slammed with a similar thing. I mean if you want to use Play, you have to use a Google account, which is also used for ad targeting. And IIRC, APK installer isn't included on all default Android devices, so you're forced to use (or make) an account to at least install one thing.[/QUOTE] It also inflates google+ user counts.

[QUOTE=Killuah;40258469]It also inflates google+ user counts.[/QUOTE] Can you no longer create regular Google accounts? And (again) you don't need a Google account to install anything.

[QUOTE=Killuah;40258469]It also inflates google+ user counts.[/QUOTE] no it doesn't. I've had an android phone plus a crapton of other google shit forever and I got a google+ account... tuesday.

[QUOTE=melonmonkey;40244797]I'm not sure how you guys are blowing this off so lightly. Google has very real potential of becoming a monopoly, doesn't pretty much every government in the world have measures in place to stop that?[/QUOTE] I've been getting pretty cautious of Google as of late. It feels like they're extending too far. They're not becoming a monopoly in the sense that they dominate one market entirely, but they're becoming too powerful in controlling [i]all[/i] the markets. Something like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_integration]vertical integration[/url] as opposed to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_integration]horizontal integration[/url], the latter being what most people think of when they hear monopoly.

The funny this is, Microsoft claiming that Google is anti-competitive because they're offering Android for below cost (i.e. free) is exactly what they did with IE against Netscape.

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;40261056]The funny this is, Microsoft claiming that Google is anti-competitive because they're offering Android for below cost (i.e. free) is exactly what they did with IE against Netscape.[/QUOTE] And IE was neither open source or good, so Google's done a better job. Infact they're probably just annoyed that Google did it better.

[QUOTE=SGI Onyx;40244825]They haven't done anything underhand to achieve that monopoly, everyone else just sucks in comparison.[/QUOTE] This. None of the other companies are trying to compete. All they do is attempt to get governments to shut down their competitors so they won't have to offer decent services.

[IMG]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6cdaikxd11rx9ntho1_500.gif[/IMG] Oy Vey.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40258528]no it doesn't. I've had an android phone plus a crapton of other google shit forever and I got a google+ account... tuesday.[/QUOTE] As soon as you use the play store it is registered as a google+ account