You mean, it does not have competition?

I assume the other commentor is saying "it's a joke" that the courts are holding google to stricter rules as to how they operate because the OS is more open (in that third parties can run other browsers and software). Google is responding by locking their platform down to be more like apple's walled-garden, so they avoid future scrutiny. Ironically, anti-competition laws (as written) are encouraging google to perform anti-competitive practices because the courts would rather google control the entire OS rather than makes default-software-deals with third party device manufacturers.

▲

CWuestefeld 3 days ago | parent [-]

the courts would rather google control

If the court is doing its job properly, it shouldn't be considering this at all. Their job is not to decide what outcome they find preferable. Their job is to assess compliance with the laws. If you don't like the outcome, then you ought to be complaining to your legislators to fix the broken antitrust laws, rather than saying that the courts are evil.

Of course, that's how things are supposed to work. It doesn't always work out that way. But let's at least try to use the system as it was intended rather than trying to force it even further out of spec just to get your own preferred outcome.

	▲	GeekyBear 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The courts judge violations of antitrust law. If you create an open platform it is subject to antitrust law. Ask Microsoft about the difference in the legal restrictions on what they are allowed to do on their Windows platform vs their Xbox platform.

▲

red_rech 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It does, but open borders are for capital, not you.