Hacker News Reader

Comment by at-fates-hands | Hacker News Reader

>> This complaint is a narrow one

While this is true, the implications could be far reaching for companies here in the US

Since Apple has instituted their "walled Garden" approach to all their software and now Microsoft is doing the same with their software, it would open the door for more litigation against both companies as "monopolistic" if Yandex were to prove its case against Android.

The interesting question then becomes, if "monopoly" means not having choices once you've selected a company's OS (meaning you have to use their apps, their browser, their API's), or is it irrelevant since you do have a "choice" to go with whatever OS you want to use to begin with?

View on HN

I think the walled garden approach that Apple, Google, and Microsoft all ascribe to is definitely anti-competitive at it's core, and I truly hope more governments will start addressing it as such.

What walled garden does have Android?

You can change almost any default program, use alternative stores or sideload applications

Google Play/Apps. They're pushing more and more apps to be dependent on "Play Services", which is a monolithic Google cloud data platform. It ensures a large percentage of appealing apps are dependent on Google's platform, rather than the open source Android OS. Furthermore, the use of the MARA contract forbids OEMs from introducing any viable competitors into the market.

I repeat, what walled garden when it is not forbidden change or install anything on an Android device.

And still waiting any single proof of that MADA restrictions. perhaps you don't find them because you even can't spell it right.

MADA restrictions mandate Google Search be the default search provider, and that the long press on the center button goes to Google Search. And that over 20 apps must be preinstalled with a Google folder on the home screen with many of them in it. Ensuring every device must be sold with very prominent advertising of Google services.

This creates a very chilling effect on the ability for competitors to land on the platform, as at best, they'll be an unwanted second service on the device.

It seems that you learned the word MADA and you have to repeat in every post.

Do you have problems understanding what a walled garden is?

Thankfully, United States v Microsoft Corporation solved this particular dilemma in 2001.

Perhaps you could expand upon what you think they solved?

It is the case the grandparent is referencing with IE bundling in Windows. It reapplies the antitrust laws to monopolies selling bits. If Google is found to have a monopoly in market X and uses that control to gain control of market Y by forcing out competitors without really competing, that is the type of monopoly that's being targeted. This is what the grandparent is talking about. It is different from a simple monopoly the parent refers to.

Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Abusing or attaining the status in certain ways are. Walled gardens can certainly be considered a form of monopoly, but that means nothing in the eyes of the law unless they use abuse their monopoly status.

Anyone is welcome to use AOSP. Amazon has it's own, non-play, based apps. Even on a non-blessed system you can get and install the core Google APKs and have access to the play store.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com