Oh yeah for sure. Google, extremely large companies, and government apps essentially have different streams and access to support than the rest of us mere mortals. They all receive scrutiny, and may have slightly altered guidelines depending on the app, but the most consequential difference is that they have much more ability to access real support. I just don’t think it was an intentional and specific attempt to be anti-competitive, this is better explained by incompetence and the consequences of well-intentioned but poorly implemented policy.
I get what you’re saying, but giving yourself a fast lane in other business areas is an explicit choice to be anticompetitive. That decision on its own is inherently malicious. It doesn’t allow you to then say the consequences of that decision are neutral because you didn’t single out this specific competitor to block (or at least there’s no evidence you did). This is frankly a slam dunk case in the EU that will result in heavy fines for Google.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons for Google to provide extra support and exceptions to parts of their guidelines to certain parties, including themselves. No one is claiming this is a consequence-neutral decision, and it’s right to not inherently trust these exceptions, but it is not a black and white issue.
In this case, placing extra barriers around sensitive permissions like MANAGE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE for untrusted parties is perfectly reasonable, but the process they implemented should be competent and appealable to a real support person. What Google should be criticized for (and “heavily fined” by the EU if that were to happen) is their inconsistent and often incorrect baseline review process, as well as their lack of any real support. They are essentially part of a duopoly and should thus be forced to act responsibly.
Oh yeah for sure. Google, extremely large companies, and government apps essentially have different streams and access to support than the rest of us mere mortals. They all receive scrutiny, and may have slightly altered guidelines depending on the app, but the most consequential difference is that they have much more ability to access real support. I just don’t think it was an intentional and specific attempt to be anti-competitive, this is better explained by incompetence and the consequences of well-intentioned but poorly implemented policy.
I get what you’re saying, but giving yourself a fast lane in other business areas is an explicit choice to be anticompetitive. That decision on its own is inherently malicious. It doesn’t allow you to then say the consequences of that decision are neutral because you didn’t single out this specific competitor to block (or at least there’s no evidence you did). This is frankly a slam dunk case in the EU that will result in heavy fines for Google.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons for Google to provide extra support and exceptions to parts of their guidelines to certain parties, including themselves. No one is claiming this is a consequence-neutral decision, and it’s right to not inherently trust these exceptions, but it is not a black and white issue.
In this case, placing extra barriers around sensitive permissions like
MANAGE_EXTERNAL_STORAGEfor untrusted parties is perfectly reasonable, but the process they implemented should be competent and appealable to a real support person. What Google should be criticized for (and “heavily fined” by the EU if that were to happen) is their inconsistent and often incorrect baseline review process, as well as their lack of any real support. They are essentially part of a duopoly and should thus be forced to act responsibly.Sin of omission?