I haven't used that one myself, but I have used others.
And the apps
install and run just fine - from my experience with the apps I've selected
anyway.
So this shows that an "Official Android" device can utilize
third-party apps outside of "Google Play". Outside of the Google
Store.
What isn't - so far - legally available are the official "Google
Apps". Those appear to be very proprietary.
So... proprietary apps per
se aren't anti-competitive. So the "Google Apps" alone, can't be reasonably
viewed as anti-competitive.
And Android itself can be third party built
and make use of the third-party binaries being built. So that's certainly not
anti-competitive - even though there's proponents that like to claim "enforcing
a trademark is anti-competitive". The context is - of course - "within the
meaning of the Law", not "philosophically discussed".
So the question
comes down to:
If someone wants to be "Official Android" and/or "make use of
'Google Apps'" - is it anti-competitive if Google requires them to have "Google
Apps" installed as a requirement of being "Official Android"?
In answer to
that I would think:
If one can choose to remove "Google Apps" - then no,
it's not anti-competitive!
But I hold the same view equally for
others:
If one can choose to remove and install the apps one wants - it's
not anti-competitive.
And sadly, today most phones require one to root them
in order to exercise that level of choice. Given Motorola started moving to
make it available to people to unlock/root* their device soon after
the deal with Google closed - I'd say Google is moving in the right
direction.
*: I can't remember exactly what Motorola started doing and
can't easily find a link to it at the moment.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|