Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Feb 2015 17:44 UTC
Android

A U.S. federal judge has dismissed an antitrust lawsuit that charges Google harmed consumers by forcing Android handset makers to use its apps by default, but gave the plaintiffs three weeks to amend their complaint.

The two consumers who filed the suit failed to show that Google's allegedly illegal restrictive contracts on manufacturers of Android devices resulted in higher prices on phones, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman said in a Feb. 20 ruling.

Handset makers are free to release Android handsets without Google's applications, however, if you want one Google Android application, you got to have them all. I don't know if the latter is harmful in any way for consumers, but the plethora of insanely cheap - and sometimes, cheap and still really good - Android devices seems to contradict the complaint from the plaintiffs that it drives up prices.

Permalink for comment 605892
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by franzrogar
by oskeladden on Mon 23rd Feb 2015 22:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by franzrogar"
oskeladden
Member since:
2009-08-05

However, if you one one Microsoft Office application [Word, who cares for the others], you got to have them all. I don't know if this is harmful in any way for consumers...


This is not true. Microsoft sells Word as a stand-alone program. For the UK, see:
http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msuk/en_GB/pdp/Word-2013/produc...

When my wife set up her freelance translation business, we bought the standalone edition of Word. It costs half the price of the Home & Business version of Office - which is a considerable saving if you need a version of Word with a commercial license (i.e., not a Home & Student version), and don't need any of the other office programs.

Reply Parent Score: 3