>>“I can't go out and buy a Tizen or Windows phone in large part because of Google's pathological Android licensing. Google force carriers to choose between their, supposedly open, ecosystem and shipping alternative OSes.”
I don’t understand how such a licence can be legal. Surely it is monopolistic practices? Yes, Apple exists at a consumer level, but at the level of phone manufacturers google has a monopoly on licensing mobile OS to manufacturers. This is abuse of their dominance to prevent competition from android forks.
Could the difficulty be around the duopoly? We mostly have laws about monopolies, there can be some push-back against monopolies, but with a duopoly everything "seems" right.
I see so many discussions on the internet, also on HN, following the same ritual. Apple does something bad, and people say "Just choose something from the competition, like Google". Then Google does something bad and people say "Just choose something from the competition, like Apple".
Writing legislation is hard enough for a monopoly, it’s probably near impossible for a duopoly. Especially when the consumers want to use what everyone else is using and network effects come in play.
I actually meant ignoring the consumer level and look at the manufactures as the customer. If you are looking for an OS to put on your new phone you are manufacturing, what choice do you have? Apple doesn’t license iOS. Linux isn’t a feasible product yet, Windows is out. That means surely Android is a monopoly at this level no?
I don’t understand how such a licence can be legal. Surely it is monopolistic practices? Yes, Apple exists at a consumer level, but at the level of phone manufacturers google has a monopoly on licensing mobile OS to manufacturers. This is abuse of their dominance to prevent competition from android forks.