●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byFrank Malenfant ( 5456240 ) writes:
As much as I think these FAANG companies should be forced to pay more taxes, I think Android's business model is a very fair deal. Free OS in exchange of plugging their other free services. Don't Apple phones force you to use iTunes and all sorts of funky Apple cables and expensive iSutff? Nothing prevents us from using other search engines or Amazon's AppStore on an Android Device, and we cas have a wide range of phones at any price.
I'd rather have Google Search preinstalled on all my phones than being forced in the Apple ecosystem. I'd rather have choice between hunders of makes than having only High End 1000$+ iPhones and used iPhones on which you can't trust the next update because it might kill it.
twitter
facebook
byHarinezumi ( 603874 ) writes:
I don't have any problems with Google mandating that certain Google apps be included with their OS as the price of getting free access to said OS. What I take issue with is Google preventing competitors' apps from being pre-installed on new phones. It's the exclusivity that makes this behavior anti-competitive.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bypr0fessor ( 1940368 ) writes:
Android is open source the google apps however are not if you want to do it your way and install third party apps have at it but if you want google apps and support then there are only certain configurations they are willing to support. This sounds reasonable google doesn't want to support third party apps.
It's when they start telling manufactures you have to do google apps on all model devices they make or none that's when things start to get unfair. When they pay to have only their apps supported and use
byMrL0G1C ( 867445 ) writes:
"they are willing to support"
Ha Ha you're funny, support. Tell me, how can I get support for the google android apps beyond posting in some forum?
byLotana ( 842533 ) writes:
Sadly, in this day and age this is the standard of support that is expected. Our company pays quite substantial support fees for a certain software tool and all we get is forum access.
byEMN13 ( 11493 ) writes:
Even without exclusivity, this would hamper competition greatly: it means that devs will rely on those apps being present, and thus that those apps are required for full usability, and thus that third-party apps probably simple cannot work well in practice. Furthermore, most phones are not high-end, and many are even downright small: requiring google's apps means that extra apps are frivolous luxuries such phones can not really afford. By requiring their presence, competitors immediately must reduce the q
byscammed a rich nib ( 5476910 ) writes:
Don't buy the fuarkin phone
●nt threshold.
byPlumpaquatsch ( 2701653 ) writes:
As much as I think these FAANG companies should be forced to pay more taxes, I think Android's business model is a very fair deal. Free OS in exchange of plugging their other free services.
But this isn't about taxes, this is about Google putting it jackboot on the "open" Android license. Funny how people who attack the BSD license as not truly open have no problem with that.
bybradley13 ( 1118935 ) writes:
Nothing prevents you from using other search engines, BUT: Google's "deal" with phone manufacturers prevents them from pre-installing anything else. Ask your average, non-technical user how to install an alternate search engine on their phone. Ask your average, non-technical user how they can get rid of the ever-present Google search widget. They will have no idea how to do either of those things. Hence, the result: Android --> Google Search
This is a very clever and intentional business practice by Google. And it is the very definition of an abusive monopoly: using dominance in one area (Android) to support dominance in another area (mobile search). Actually, not only search, but also all of the other uninstallable Google apps, like maps. All of which leads to Google dominance in mobile advertising, which is where they make their money. BTW, It doesn't matter that Android is "free" - so is your first hit from the drug dealer.
Parent
twitter
facebook
by_Sharp'r_ ( 649297 ) writes:
The flaw in the fine is the makes-no-sense standard. Apple has a less open, completely locked down OS environment, but they don't get fined, while Google has a more open and more free for others to use whatever hardware and apps they want OS environment, so they get fined.
They're holding Google to a ridiculous standard while they allow Apple to do way more without comment, only because Google is friendlier to allowing others to bring their own hardware and apps than Apple is. What kind of messed up standard
by_Sharp'r_ ( 649297 ) writes:
Apple gets paid $3 Billion/year for the privilege of being the default search engine on iOS.
Just because they don't happen to own their own, doesn't mean they don't have a financial interest and gain in deciding which one goes on iPhones. I'd guess they have similar deals for any other default app they don't own on iPhones. They certainly make a bunch from their enforced cut of all Apple app store software/book/music/movie sales they do their best to lock all their customers into.
So the argument still stand
by_Sharp'r_ ( 649297 ) writes:
You're an idiot. Google isn't "forcing" manufacturers to use their search engine nor install their software on their hardware either. Any phone maker is free to not enter into a voluntary agreement with Google to use the software Google produces. They can even use Android as a base without using Google's proprietary software (Amazon does). What they can't do is use Google's software and then not comply with the licensing agreement. Except of course, in Europe, where companies who license software for others
by_Sharp'r_ ( 649297 ) writes:
I don't particularly like Apple, nor Google, despite carrying a phone from each of them, but I do recognize an unfair and counter-productive antitrust decision (only punishing the more open to increasing competition configuration and agreements) when I see one.
by_Sharp'r_ ( 649297 ) writes:
No, Google allows companies to include other search engines and competing browsers, they just have to include Google's when they use Google's software.
The EU defined the relevent "market" as licensable phone OSes. [truthonthemarket.com] That's a ridiculous market definition, which completely excludes, for example, Apple, which has 25% of the EU market for mobile phones.
The EU's antitrust laws don't take into account the affect on consumers, they only look at the structure of the market they define and if the EU thinks they're fai
●your current threshold.
●r current threshold.
●urrent threshold.
●rrent threshold.
by_Sharp'r_ ( 649297 ) writes:
Depending on the country, iOS has between 20% and 45% market share in Europe. Hardly a "bit player", I'm pretty sure that's largest than any other single manufacturer.
by_Sharp'r_ ( 649297 ) writes:
If we compare like for like in terms of competition for customers customers (which is what is supposed to be the subject of anti-trust):
Does Google allow other manufacturers to install Google's OS on their phones at all in order to compete with them? They have no control over over phone manufacturers, who can do anything they want on their phones without Google's approval as long as they aren't using Google's software, but they also allow phone manufacturers to install Google's proprietary software packages
●rrent threshold.
bycolonslash ( 544210 ) writes:
> This is a very clever and intentional business practice by Google.
Yes, they give people free services in exchange for advertising. This has proven very popular, and that's why Android is one of the 2 biggest mobile OSes.
> And it is the very definition of an abusive monopoly
No. Being successful because people choose your product doesn't make a company a monopoly. Google does not control the supply of smartphone OSes. They actually make the AOSP freely available, so they make it easy for competition t
bybeer_maker ( 263112 ) writes:
Those users quite simply "Google it" ... what they really lack is the desire or understanding of why they might want to do such a thing.
If you want people to switch their default browser you need to make them want to, and that's just not happening. As for the other apps, they are quite easy to ignore, IF the users want to use another application. Most people don't care.
●nt threshold.
●nt threshold.
byreanjr ( 588767 ) writes:
The difference between Apple and Google is that one can make the argument that Google is a monopoly, and therefore subject to different requirements. Apple has never come close to monopolizing anything.
byaybiss ( 876862 ) writes:
No, it's taxation.
bysegin ( 883667 ) writes:
Explain how it's not theft. Oh, and before you go sucking the government's cock and responding "social contract", I'd like a physical copy for my lawyer and to have my signature pointed out.
●ur current threshold.
byaliquis ( 678370 ) writes:
Yeah we could have closed border and send those who have come here back again.
May be my preferred solution.
But who is making it happen?
My second best solution would be to deal with the current situation and accept globalism and freedom of people including the freedom to move freely on the planet by removing the welfare state completely and make Sweden a libertarian night-watchmen state instead.
Depending on how you view the possibility of deporting say 2 million people and people who are born here and such t
byaliquis ( 678370 ) writes:
If we had a night-watchmen state then people who owned property would still pay for it.
And if we had private guards, military and police then they would still do it.
And if I was allowed to defend myself I would also do it myself.
The left doesn't accept either of the right of oneself or property and take way more money for their shit so ...
I'm open for all of the first three solutions.
byaliquis ( 678370 ) writes:
Currently we're not paying for social peace.
We're paying to be raped, murdered, pillaged, extinct, replaced and have our culture destroyed because they are using the money to bring in Muslim and African pillagers and invaders.
I understand having no state would lead to the most powerful being the ones most capable to get things their way.
I'm fine with a libertarian night-watchmen state as well as a solution.
It would still be cheaper and not bring in as much trash and defend us from things like socialism and
●r current threshold.
byaliquis ( 678370 ) writes:
Way to go, you're saying "you vote me down because you disagree so you're an authoritarian so you should be killed"
Way to go.
No.
I'm saying any person who threaten my liberty should be killed in self-defense.
Which include dictators and socialists.
The problem isn't in the disagreement part. The problem is violating my liberty. Then it's all fair.
byaliquis ( 678370 ) writes:
It was an example and it doesn't matter whatever the limit is 60, 65, 70 years, 6, 8 or 10 hours.
It's not acceptable that society rule my life like that regardless of the specifics.
As is though a normal work day in Sweden is 8 hours and the earliest age you can get national pension from right now is 61 but it will become 62 in 2020, 63 in 2023, 64 in 2026.
The average age when people retire right now is 64.5. The higher end for when to start it will be pushed from 67 to 69 years. Swedes as is is already expe
●our current threshold.
● current threshold.
●urrent threshold.
●rrent threshold.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Road use is theft.
byChrisMaple ( 607946 ) writes:
Who "our"? You don't own the soil under another person's property.
byrea1l1 ( 903073 ) writes:
Private property is theft of the commons, defended by threat. Every creature on this planet is joint owner. Claiming vast swaths of land that aren't used is a grave offense to those born into a world of artificial scarcity, which serves only to bottle humanity into a subjugated renting slave class.
Ownership of property ought only extend to a territorial boundary of actual personal use, and never for private profits, but only personal necesities. There is a class of men sitting around doing nothing, owning e
●our current threshold.
●r current threshold.
● current threshold.
● current threshold.
byaliquis ( 678370 ) writes:
No. Using someone else's road without permission would be trespassing or such.
byreanjr ( 588767 ) writes:
Every ICE driver is stealing a healthy planet from future generations. That's why they get taxed. Not to pay for roads. It's just a proxy.
●current threshold.
byChrisMaple ( 607946 ) writes:
Taxation provides money for dishonest politicians to give to their non-working relatives.
Taxation istheft. It's property taken without the owner's voluntary permission, and that's theft. The relevant consideration is whether the damage caused by the theft is smaller in magnitude than the good (if any) brought about by the exchange of tax money for goods and services.
bysegin ( 883667 ) writes:
Taken from whom?
byreanjr ( 588767 ) writes:
That's exactly what happens in the Bible...
● current threshold.
byaliquis ( 678370 ) writes:
Taxation is theft.
In no way does what the money is used for change that.
bySynonymous Homonym ( 1901660 ) writes:
Tax evasion is stealing the bread out of the mouth of the poor.
bysegin ( 883667 ) writes:
Wrong. The poor's inability to further make themselves valuable steal bread from themselves.
bySynonymous Homonym ( 1901660 ) writes:
But they are valuable: Those out of work help keep wages low.
●our current threshold.
bycas2000 ( 148703 ) writes:
If you're a Libertarian (more accurately called a propertarian) and ant to think in terms of contracts then taxation is the "service fee" for living within and having access to the services and facilities of the nation whose territory you're in.
That includes roads, schools, hospitals, laws, police, and much more. even government departments like the various state and federal land titles offices that say that person X owns parcel Y of land - you know, one of the types of property that you worship so much.
bysegin ( 883667 ) writes:
Telling libertarians to go to Somalia is the equivalent of making a comparison against Nazis with respect to Godwin's Law.
byninjagin ( 631183 ) writes:
Had I the mod points, I would grant all of them to you. Thank you for saying this.
● current threshold.
●urrent threshold.
bybutchersong ( 1222796 ) writes:
Income tax can be argued to be theft. My water and sewer bill pay for running water. Roads should be funded by gas tax (I believe mostly are) so that those using the service are the ones paying for it...
bymrvan ( 973822 ) writes:
Income tax can be argued to be theft. My water and sewer bill pay for running water. Roads should be funded by gas tax (I believe mostly are) so that those using the service are the ones paying for it...
Water and sewer are different because you could (in theory) decide not to use the service - although its vastly inefficient to install a water tank and get water trucked in, in theory one could, and many boats do exactly this. Same for electricity and other utilities, you don't need to use them, and you pay for your usage.
This is not the case for all (public) goods, though. In the Netherlands, I pay a watership tax that is used to maintain the dikes and related works that prevent flooding. Is that theft? I
●urrent threshold.
byaliquis ( 678370 ) writes:
No they have a cost / someone want to be paid for providing them but they don't have to be paid for by taxes which is theft and abuse. By no means do you need either for things people actually want. Those things people would willingly pay for by their own will. The other things they don't want and society shouldn't force them to it.
Profits isn't theft. Profit is what remains between what someone willingly spent for something after you've paid what you wad willing to pay for something else. There's no theft
bycas2000 ( 148703 ) writes:
Only retarded children - perhaps natural epsilons, or the sad result of fetal alcohol syndrome - say moronic things like "taxation is theft".
bysegin ( 883667 ) writes:
We LiVe iN a SoCiEtY
byreanjr ( 588767 ) writes:
Taxation is extortion.
byreanjr ( 588767 ) writes:
Google's monopoly is in search, not phones. Apple doesn't compare.
● current threshold.
●urrent threshold.
bybarakn ( 641218 ) writes:
No, taxation is not theft, and you are stupid for thinking it is. "Ownership" is not a natural right. What you can own, how you can own it, who the ownership passes on to when you die, etc. is defined by the laws of your government. And your government is perfectly free to define what small percentage of what you own leaves your ownership and becomes the government's. And for that matter, your government gets to define what theft is too. That way you can't claim you own the wind and then charge the pe
bymrvan ( 973822 ) writes:
No, taxation is not theft, and you are stupid for thinking it is. "Ownership" is not a natural right. What you can own, how you can own it, who the ownership passes on to when you die, etc. is defined by the laws of your government. And your government is perfectly free to define what small percentage of what you own leaves your ownership and becomes the government's. And for that matter, your government gets to define what theft is too. That way you can't claim you own the wind and then charge the person next to you with theft for breathing it.
Well, that's a legal-philosophical position. Do we have natural rights, or are rights things bestowed on us by legal texts?
If you follow your reasoning to its extreme, nothing the government does can be wrong provided it first passes the necessary laws. So if the government legally adopts a law that all (e.g.) people born in March are in violation to be punishable by statutory execution, that would be totally fine.
An opposing position is that we naturally have certain rights, like property, and that we acce
● current threshold.
● current threshold.
●rrent threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...