>That's certainly an interesting way to look at it, but it doesn't change the fact that Android does make money, both for Google and for carriers/manufacturers. So, again, it's not an artificially lowered price, and while it certainly augments search, it's not subsidized by search.
Google's revenue sources from Android are mostly mobile searches that would happen anyway. I bet they make as much if not more from iOS devices.
It's a moat because Google was afraid that it might get locked out of mobile search default (eg. WP7) and while iOS uses Google, what if Apple changes the default to iSearch or Bing? Remember how Apple didn't approve Google voice for iOS for a whole year? Google would be screwed out of mobile search revenue in a big way, esp. if Bing/iSearch/xyz are close enough to Google.
>Your argument for maps and finance is stronger, but the analogy isn't great. For one, Google doesn't have close to the monopoly that MS had. For another, it's really hard to draw the line between the products, and equally hard to say whether Google's use of its search engine to point to its own services is unfair, if it really believes its own products are better. I would characterize their position on this issue as still some distance from MS + IE on the 'fair' to 'unfair' spectrum, but still in 'fair' territory. Of course, I never found the bundling line of argument against IE to be particularly compelling.
Google has a LOT of marketshare, esp in many non US regions. Eg 91% in UK.
So the point about Google really believing that it's product was superior doesn't matter. A maps startup would need to be 10x better than Google maps out the game to even get funding since searching on Google for the name of a city doesn't even mention MapQuest, Bing Maps or Yahoo Maps. Would you support a forced default map choice on Google like the one for browsers in EU on Windows?
re moat: I don't see how your points here speak to your argument that Android is uncompetitive. It's an attempt not to get locked out of the mobile search market. If anything, it promotes competitiveness.
A LOT of marketshare isn't a monopoly and I'm not sure what bearing regional marketshare has on your argument. A search for "Portland Or" gives me mapquest on the second page. "Portland Or Map" gives me mapquest as the second search result.
"IE was actually better than Netscape in the late 90s, early 2000s. Netscape screwed itself by not releasing a new version during the dotcom boom between 1997 and 2007."
So, are you arguing that MS was being perfectly fair and shouldn't have been convicted? At this point, I'm really not sure what you're arguing. I think my position is pretty clear. Are you arguing:
1. MS was wrong and now Google is similarly wrong.
2. MS was not wrong, but Google now is.
3. MS was perceived as wrong by the public, and so Google will be too because of similarities.
It's starting to sound like you're representing 3, which isn't very interesting to me.
>That's certainly an interesting way to look at it, but it doesn't change the fact that Android does make money, both for Google and for carriers/manufacturers. So, again, it's not an artificially lowered price, and while it certainly augments search, it's not subsidized by search.
Google's revenue sources from Android are mostly mobile searches that would happen anyway. I bet they make as much if not more from iOS devices.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/15/google-android-money/
http://www.mobilespoon.net/2011/07/can-microsoft-generate-mo...
It's a moat because Google was afraid that it might get locked out of mobile search default (eg. WP7) and while iOS uses Google, what if Apple changes the default to iSearch or Bing? Remember how Apple didn't approve Google voice for iOS for a whole year? Google would be screwed out of mobile search revenue in a big way, esp. if Bing/iSearch/xyz are close enough to Google.
>Your argument for maps and finance is stronger, but the analogy isn't great. For one, Google doesn't have close to the monopoly that MS had. For another, it's really hard to draw the line between the products, and equally hard to say whether Google's use of its search engine to point to its own services is unfair, if it really believes its own products are better. I would characterize their position on this issue as still some distance from MS + IE on the 'fair' to 'unfair' spectrum, but still in 'fair' territory. Of course, I never found the bundling line of argument against IE to be particularly compelling.
Google has a LOT of marketshare, esp in many non US regions. Eg 91% in UK.
http://www.chandlernguyen.com/2011/03/search-engine-market-s...
IE was actually better than Netscape in the late 90s, early 2000s. Netscape screwed itself by not releasing a new version during the dotcom boom between 1997 and 2007. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
So the point about Google really believing that it's product was superior doesn't matter. A maps startup would need to be 10x better than Google maps out the game to even get funding since searching on Google for the name of a city doesn't even mention MapQuest, Bing Maps or Yahoo Maps. Would you support a forced default map choice on Google like the one for browsers in EU on Windows?