

Ask HN: Could Google Android face antitrust lawsuits like US vs. Microsoft? - callum85

Microsoft was found guilty of breaking antitrust law after they used their dominance in one market (operating systems) to win a bigger share of another market (browsers). They did this by designing the Windows UI and APIs to favour Internet Explorer over 3rd-party browsers, for example.<p>It seems to me the tight integration of Gmail and Google Calendar on Android phones gives it a clear advantage over 3rd party mail and calendar services.<p>Is Google using its dominance in one market (mobile operating systems) to benefit their position in another (calendar and mail services)? Aren't they at risk of similar lawsuits?<p>Or is there some difference that I'm missing?
======
wmf
Android only has ~50% market share, which is hardly a monopoly. Also, Gmail
was already very successful before Android was released. Also, it's hard to
show what consumer harm has come from this bundling. (I was forced to sign up
for Gmail when I got an Android phone, but I just don't use it.)

------
simba-hiiipower
Interesting that you look to its dominance in Mobile (Android) affecting on
Email/Calendaring when considering such a case. That never really crossed my
mind; but I have done some thinking on the topic and feel there is a much more
poignant case for an abuse of monopoly power by GOOG. And, in my opinion, I
feel that what GOOG has done is far worse than MSFT in its case. With that
said, though, I also believe the risk of GOOG facing a similar case is highly
unlikely and I’ll explain why.

First off, I’d argue that GOOG’s dominance in Mobile is not the cause of any
potential antitrust action (at this point), but rather, the result of an abuse
of its monopoly power in Search. And (again, my opinion here) this is far
worse than MSFT’s abuse in leveraging Windows’ dominance as an OS to enter the
Browser market.

I’ll start with looking at MSFT. At the time of the case Windows as an OS
commanded essentially the entire market for 'connected devices' (back then the
only real connected device was the PC). And the only practical way to use a
browser was through a PC. So MSFT used its dominance in the first, a market
which it controlled entirely, to break into the latter, an emerging market
with many small players. While this may seem ‘bad’ (it is, as it stifles
innovation in the space) it clearly made sense for the company as a defensive
measure. MSFT saw where the market was heading (…the internet), and realized
that the growth of browsers (the gateways to the internet) that were not tied-
down to a particular OS could threaten Windows’ dominance. So MSFT created IE
and bundled it with Windows, for free, while strong-arming Hardware
manufacturers to not bundle Netscape (and others). Again, yes this is bad. But
it makes perfect business sense as a defensive move to preserve an existing
product (and especially so when you’re dealing with a product that was
essentially the whole company at the time).

Now let’s look at GOOG. In the wake of a competitor essentially building-out a
new market (yes, smartphones were around for years before the iPhone; but look
at the market pre and post release and you’ll see why I call it a new market)
GOOG acquired and built-out Android to compete. <For this case let’s just put
aside the fact that mush of Android utilizes patented IP from, oddly enough,
MSFT’s Windows Mobile (among many others) and looks, umm.. ‘similar’ to the
iPhone’s UI. After all, in the above I ignored the fact that IE was likely
heavily influenced by Netscape and others in the market, so it’s only fair we
put that aside.> So far, nothing really different here. And, like MSFT with
IE, GOOG made Android free. But here is why I find GOOG’s abuse far worse..
MSFT did what it did to protect its product; GOOG, on the other hand, used
monopoly profits from dominance in one industry to entirely undermine an,
let’s be honest, entirely unrelated industry. We’re not talking Mobile search
here, we’re talking an entire Mobile OS; and one that competes feature-to-
feature with others in the market. And taking an entire OS, which is arguably
one of the most valuable contributor to the market (in terms of IP), and
making it free, is one of the worst things a company could do. It is for this
reason, that as extreme of a view as it was, I can entirely relate to Steve
Job’s views on the issue (especially if you couple-in the element I left out
above).

So, with all that said, why don’t I think GOOG faces the same threat of
antitrust action as MSFT? Well, I’ll keep it short and say that times change,
markets change, and the relative positions of the players involved matters. At
the time of MSFT’s case people feared the idea that any one company could
become so dominant. This, coupled with the fact that the goliath that is/was
MSFT was taking on relatively small players like Netscape, and you have the
perfect combination for major antitrust litigation. GOOG faces different
attitudes in today’s society and the fact that it’s undercutting the likes of
AAPL (they made how much last quarter!?), RIMM, MSFT and others likely won’t
mount the same type of pressure if it were truly entering a new market with
smaller players. Though I feel they deserve it, I don’t see GOOG facing the
same situation MSFT did, and that’s just the way it is.

And, getting back to the original post, I feel if this larger issue, and more
severe abuse, is unlikely to present a threat to GOOG, I doubt integrating its
services within Android will either.

