Despite being rich in fruits, flowers, and young leaves, the rainy season in Madagascar is exceedingly long and rather dull. Luckily, news coming from Brussels suddenly brightened this lemur's grey and humid day. The European Commission decided to send a statement to Google containing allegations of abuses of dominant position in the markets for general internet search services. Moreover, the Commission opened an in-depth investigation as regards the mobile operating system Android.
It isn't unlikely that many a rainy season will need to pass by before European consumers will be able to experience any type of concrete results deriving from the ongoing Google proceedings. At any rate, it isn't expected that Google’s quasi de facto monopoly of the European general internet search markets will be challenged in any significant way. Not even Commissioner Vestager can raise the dead. One of the most disheartening lessons of the US and EU Microsoft Windows cases is that the same company still holds more than 90% of the allegedly bubbly market for desktop computer operating system. However, it can be hoped that these late enforcement feats will help establish some clear-cut, reasonable, enforceable boundaries to Google’s potentially fatal expansion into adjacent markets. Competition law isn't too boorish a tool for judging the high-pitched technologies of the "digital economy". In fact, few primates would disagree that Google's search algorithm should perform in a way that doesn't hamper competition on the merits.
.jpg)
What this lemur finds particularly enlivening is the news regarding the in-depth investigation zooming in on Android. Google's technological platform is not directly defined and controlled by the ownership of its operating system for hand held and other devices. Therefore, Android isn't retracing the path of the personal computer industry. The technology universe has become a much more complex place.The relative openness of Android's licensing terms has enabled other firms such as Amazon and Xiaomi to build their own platforms on top of Android. Instead, Google focuses its monetization efforts on a whole array of digital services (Google Search, Gmail, Google Maps, YouTube, etc.) that collect economically valuable user information. In this respect, and differently from the Microsoft saga, the operating system isn't the bottleneck and the locus for value capture in Android's ecosystem. The bottleneck has shifted from the device to Internet (or cloud)-based services. Most importantly, the Android operating system has also been embedded in glasses, watches, automobiles, TVs, refrigerators, etc.
Even a simple minded lemur can see why Google's governance of its Android platform deserves candid attention by competition authorities. The set of post-Chicago economic models developed specifically to account for network effects presented competition authorities on both sides of the pond with arguments explaining the emergence and resiliency of Microsoft Windows as the dominant OS for personal computers. "Free lunch" rhetoric aside, the still largely untackled question that Commissioner Vestager and her team are set to dwell into is whether there are market characteristics providing Google with the incentives to fortify its grip on the technological platform not through innovation of its products but through the exercise of some form of market power. This hopelessly sentimental lemur considers that one of competition policy most honourable objectives should be to protect competitors' legitimate challenges to the hegemony of platform owners. Admittedly, here is where competition authorities spectacularly failed in the EU and US Microsoft cases.
It isn't unlikely that many a rainy season will need to pass by before European consumers will be able to experience any type of concrete results deriving from the ongoing Google proceedings. At any rate, it isn't expected that Google’s quasi de facto monopoly of the European general internet search markets will be challenged in any significant way. Not even Commissioner Vestager can raise the dead. One of the most disheartening lessons of the US and EU Microsoft Windows cases is that the same company still holds more than 90% of the allegedly bubbly market for desktop computer operating system. However, it can be hoped that these late enforcement feats will help establish some clear-cut, reasonable, enforceable boundaries to Google’s potentially fatal expansion into adjacent markets. Competition law isn't too boorish a tool for judging the high-pitched technologies of the "digital economy". In fact, few primates would disagree that Google's search algorithm should perform in a way that doesn't hamper competition on the merits.
What this lemur finds particularly enlivening is the news regarding the in-depth investigation zooming in on Android. Google's technological platform is not directly defined and controlled by the ownership of its operating system for hand held and other devices. Therefore, Android isn't retracing the path of the personal computer industry. The technology universe has become a much more complex place.The relative openness of Android's licensing terms has enabled other firms such as Amazon and Xiaomi to build their own platforms on top of Android. Instead, Google focuses its monetization efforts on a whole array of digital services (Google Search, Gmail, Google Maps, YouTube, etc.) that collect economically valuable user information. In this respect, and differently from the Microsoft saga, the operating system isn't the bottleneck and the locus for value capture in Android's ecosystem. The bottleneck has shifted from the device to Internet (or cloud)-based services. Most importantly, the Android operating system has also been embedded in glasses, watches, automobiles, TVs, refrigerators, etc.Even a simple minded lemur can see why Google's governance of its Android platform deserves candid attention by competition authorities. The set of post-Chicago economic models developed specifically to account for network effects presented competition authorities on both sides of the pond with arguments explaining the emergence and resiliency of Microsoft Windows as the dominant OS for personal computers. "Free lunch" rhetoric aside, the still largely untackled question that Commissioner Vestager and her team are set to dwell into is whether there are market characteristics providing Google with the incentives to fortify its grip on the technological platform not through innovation of its products but through the exercise of some form of market power. This hopelessly sentimental lemur considers that one of competition policy most honourable objectives should be to protect competitors' legitimate challenges to the hegemony of platform owners. Admittedly, here is where competition authorities spectacularly failed in the EU and US Microsoft cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment