Ars just published a front page article on how Google broke Google pay and I’m struggling to understand why that matters, fundamentally because I don’t understand why anybody would use a Google product. Google is the least reliable tech company. They constantly relaunch products on new codebases which results in an inability to deal with bugs or issues because they break as many working things as they fix with each new release. I no longer own an Apple computer but am still happily ensconced in their ecosystem because it’s stable. I don’t really understand how Microsoft dropped the ball so bad or why Amazon wasn’t able to launch a competing platform, but Android users seem relatively happy with the platform
I don’t understand how Android is the dominant phone platform.
- Thread starter Exordium01
- Start date
Because it's not Apple is MORE than enough justification.
The fact that it's a platform where you have a high degree of control is the icing on the cake. The iPhone is struggling to achieve interface parity with the customization that Android has had for years, and much of the value-add of the ecosystem is not as useful unless you buy into the entire closed ecosystem.
The fact is that everyone else dropped the ball and the ship of "what should a smartphone look like" is a ship that has sailed. Nobody else has the resources or the will to throw at the problem.
The fact that it's a platform where you have a high degree of control is the icing on the cake. The iPhone is struggling to achieve interface parity with the customization that Android has had for years, and much of the value-add of the ecosystem is not as useful unless you buy into the entire closed ecosystem.
The fact is that everyone else dropped the ball and the ship of "what should a smartphone look like" is a ship that has sailed. Nobody else has the resources or the will to throw at the problem.
I don’t necessarily think Apple should have the dominant market position with their platform or business model. I’m just surprised that anybody is willing to play ball with Google because they’re such an unreliable company, and don’t really understand how everybody else mis-stepped badly enough to let Android get to where it is. It doesn’t seem like it would have taken much to cut off Google, especially considering how blindsided they were by the iPhone. Android development software looked a lot more like Windows Mobile than the iPhone OS when the first iPhone came out. Motorola released the Droid on a completely redeveloped Android platform a year or so after the iPhone came out.
Amazon should have been a real competitor but the failure of the Fire phone mirrors the impotence of Blue Origin. Bezos is certainly looking like a one-trick pony.
Amazon should have been a real competitor but the failure of the Fire phone mirrors the impotence of Blue Origin. Bezos is certainly looking like a one-trick pony.
I think the answer is that for the things most people use their phones for, Google and Android are just fine. Who cares if they break Google Voice or Google Reader or [insert chat thing here] if the core of what people use their phones for remains intact.
Android makes phone calls, it does the web, it does email, it takes pictures and it does apps. None of those things have had any instability that the average user is going to notice.
That said there does seem to be some evidence of Android losing steam. In a number of developed markets including the US, Android and iOS were steady state for years. But iOS has seen a small but notable marketshare increase over the last 12 months.
Android makes phone calls, it does the web, it does email, it takes pictures and it does apps. None of those things have had any instability that the average user is going to notice.
That said there does seem to be some evidence of Android losing steam. In a number of developed markets including the US, Android and iOS were steady state for years. But iOS has seen a small but notable marketshare increase over the last 12 months.
I don't understand why we need this thread. Didn't we beat this into the ground for years?
Google was privy to the plans for iPhone ahead of launch. They saw that it was the right move and turned their entire plans around. Microsoft pushed forward with what they had and by the time they realized their mistake, they had lost every bit of momentum they had. Everything else can be summed up as normal market dynamics.
Google was privy to the plans for iPhone ahead of launch. They saw that it was the right move and turned their entire plans around. Microsoft pushed forward with what they had and by the time they realized their mistake, they had lost every bit of momentum they had. Everything else can be summed up as normal market dynamics.
Because you can get a new Android phone, that works well enough, for a lot less money than an iPhone.
It's not the only reason, of course, but it's a huge one.
It's not the only reason, of course, but it's a huge one.
Pretty much the only Google apps I use on my Android are the store, phone, SMS texting, and camera
I use more Microsoft apps than that. I dont know if enough other users actually care but its pretty easy to avoid Google on Android (other than the double secret telemetry)
Can we really call it the Battlefront without a few good flame threads? :devious:
I can buy a phone with a headphone jack.
The only Google app I really use is Maps. Maps is an excellent product. I leave location services off most of the time, and at least in theory have disabled most of the ancillary tracking they do. I obviously use the Phone and Settings apps, but beyond that, almost nothing from Google. Everything else is third-party.... vpn, bank app, music player, web browser, Steam, etc.
I don't play any games on my phone, because mobile games in general aren't great, and the screen is too small. So while the time spent to turn off all the Google tracking really sucks, it's a one-time investment, and from then on it doesn't really matter whether it's Apple or not. When support for this 3a expires in March, I will probably switch over to LineageOS, and keep it using it longer than Google likes.
I would kind of like Apple Pay, that's an interesting feature, but I'm not willing to trade away wired headphone support to get it. If Apple still did wired headphones, I'd probably be on that side of the fence. My phone is not central to my digital life, and I'd be just as happy with either brand in actual use.
edit: oh, and I do use the camera app. So: GMaps, phone, settings, Google Play (for updates), and camera. I can't imagine Google discontinuing any of those or screwing them up too badly.
The only Google app I really use is Maps. Maps is an excellent product. I leave location services off most of the time, and at least in theory have disabled most of the ancillary tracking they do. I obviously use the Phone and Settings apps, but beyond that, almost nothing from Google. Everything else is third-party.... vpn, bank app, music player, web browser, Steam, etc.
I don't play any games on my phone, because mobile games in general aren't great, and the screen is too small. So while the time spent to turn off all the Google tracking really sucks, it's a one-time investment, and from then on it doesn't really matter whether it's Apple or not. When support for this 3a expires in March, I will probably switch over to LineageOS, and keep it using it longer than Google likes.
I would kind of like Apple Pay, that's an interesting feature, but I'm not willing to trade away wired headphone support to get it. If Apple still did wired headphones, I'd probably be on that side of the fence. My phone is not central to my digital life, and I'd be just as happy with either brand in actual use.
edit: oh, and I do use the camera app. So: GMaps, phone, settings, Google Play (for updates), and camera. I can't imagine Google discontinuing any of those or screwing them up too badly.
I use maps and Gmail and the camera and the built ins. I miss here maps. I'm running the Microsoft launcher and avoid other Google apps as best I can. I might use Google search, I might use Bing. Whatever, don't care.
There are people who are anti-Apple, there are people who will actively prefer Android. Most just take the phone that is free with their cell phone plan and that is some cheap Android phone.
It's because Google isn't as unstable as is made out to be, at least when it comes to core products. You hear about Google killing off projects frequently, but many of them are niche products or flops. When it comes to their core products like Android, they are fairly consistent and stable.
Android also happens to be the dominant choice because it is much more open and accessible. You can't get a $200 iPhone unless you buy a severely dated phone that may or may not still be supported by Apple. It's the same reason that Windows is the dominant desktop OS, you can put it on about anything and it can fit your needs more.
Android also happens to be the dominant choice because it is much more open and accessible. You can't get a $200 iPhone unless you buy a severely dated phone that may or may not still be supported by Apple. It's the same reason that Windows is the dominant desktop OS, you can put it on about anything and it can fit your needs more.
That $200 Android phone won't be supported for very long. Every iPhone model made in the last six years is still getting support and software updates.
I'm not sure how many 6 year old iPhones haven't been through a battery/screen replacement
The cost per year is still going to favor Android
An iPhone SE costs $399 new (as little as $150 with carrier deals) and a battery replacement is $49. There's no reason you'd need a screen replacement unless you drop the phone often/don't use a screen protector.
The SE launched 1.5 years ago so if you assume it has 4.5 years of support left, that puts it at $100/yr.
A $200 Android phone with 2 years of updates is comparable, cost-wise.
It takes more effort, but a lot of Android phones have LineageOS support, so you can keep patching them for two or three more years. If you add the Gapps package, it's quite similar to regular Android, or at least it was on my last phone. (I have a Pixel 3a now, and I'm waiting until it goes out of support before switching.)
For average folks, that's not of much interest, because it's too hard. But most of the people reading this thread could probably handle it just fine. I mean, you get step-by-step instructions and everything. Definitely not rocket science.
IMO, that partially negates Apple's better support policies. Not entirely, but it does affect the cost-per-year fairly substantially. On the front page right now, for example, is an article about the Moto G Pure, at $160. If Lineage ends up supporting that model, your cost-per-year could end up being like $40.
Whilst old Android phones don't get core Android OS updates, they still get app and Google Play Services updates. This isn't ideal, but it keeps the devices functional for a long time.
It's the price. It's always the price. It always will be the price. Even the cheapest iPhone is a premium purchase for a huge number of folks, and is functionally identical to a brand new £150 Android phone.
Does it make sense to think of Android as the dominant platform? Yes it’s the dominant shipped mobile OS, but that hasn’t lead to dominance in the traditional sense. Dominance implies having your will with the market and that doesn’t seem to be happening to any measurable degree. Apple doesn’t seem to be experiencing pricing pressure - their margin is enviable and set-a-clock-to-it stable. They don’t seem to have any problem attracting developer support and if you use “leveraging new APIs” as a metric Apple seems to come out on top with their developers quicker to migrate towards supporting new APOs and new hardware features.
What does it say about how we’re defining the market if Android can dominate the market without any measurable sign of that dominance?
What does it say about how we’re defining the market if Android can dominate the market without any measurable sign of that dominance?
There are a few factors, but they're fairly simple.
Google offered a free or inexpensive licensed mobile OS at a time when Microsoft was charging a small fortune to license Windows Mobile/Phone. It made a lot more sense than Windows if you were operating on razor-thin profit margins.
Android is very flexible in a way that even Windows Mobile wasn't. You can make a $25 no-frills phone using Android Go; you can also make a $2,500 foldable. You have a choice of many CPUs, screens, cameras and other features. Microsoft wasn't that flexible to start with, but it made the mistake of drastically limiting hardware choices for Windows Phone. iPhones, of course, have never been cheap (and Apple is quite content to keep them that way).
Google also has a much stronger internet ecosystem than Microsoft or Apple ever did. That makes a great selling point in a world where Gmail, Google Maps and YouTube are practically the default internet experiences for many people. Microsoft and Apple have their advantages in certain areas, but Google is the all-rounder.
And finally, Google was the beneficiary of Steve Ballmer's bad leadership at Microsoft. Google saw the iPhone introduction and realized it needed to change Android's tack in a huge way; Ballmer infamously dismissed it, and even Windows Phone was a half-hearted answer since Ballmer refused to shift Microsoft's priorities to reflect the weight of the problem.
As I've heard it explained: Apple and Google thrived because they not only saw the possibilities of mobile, but were willing to change their entire corporate structures to focus on it. Ballmer still insisted that the Windows PC was the centre of the universe, and refused to give mobile the resources it needed. Ballmer confused the product with the company; his rivals never made that mistake.
You're too used to abuse by monopolists as defining a market. You're pointing to Apple being able being able to force people to do what they want as a market, but that's confusing your terms.
I don't doubt people keep cheap Android phones a long time, but isn't having personal information on a device that's not getting OS-level security updates a huge liability? Why is this an acceptable industry practice?
No. I’m talking about the definition of the word dominant. What does dominant mean in relation to a platform? It should mean that you get the most developers. That those developers make more money in your ecocosystem. That you attract the widest accessories market. That your devices have an advantage by being a part of your ecosystem that can translate into increased revenue (ASP).
None of the things you would think of as platform dominance actually apply to Android. All Android has is marketshare. They’re the unchallenged marketshare king. But they have failed to transformer that overwhelming marketshare lead into meaningful platform dominance.
And what’s interesting is you could see the trend years ago. They passed iOS a decade ago. By at least 6 years ago it was obvious that the marketshare lead was not translating into platform dominance. What have they done that has meaningfully changed the trajectory since then?
Android can't force developers to do what they want, that's kind of the point of the competing-implementation idea. Google has been tightening that back down somewhat, but they don't have a lot of ability to compel anyone to do anything.
Apple, on the other hand, retains an absolute monopoly in their section of the market, and can impose any terms they want. It's their way or the highway. Anyone who buys into iOS or develops for iOS must comply with Apple's demands.
Again: don't confuse monopolies with markets. Apple is able to compel developers because they are a monopoly within the broader phone market. Google is not, and can't.
Apple, on the other hand, retains an absolute monopoly in their section of the market, and can impose any terms they want. It's their way or the highway. Anyone who buys into iOS or develops for iOS must comply with Apple's demands.
Again: don't confuse monopolies with markets. Apple is able to compel developers because they are a monopoly within the broader phone market. Google is not, and can't.
Where did I say ‘compel’? We’re talking about market dominance not monopoly power.
If they were truly market dominant they wouldn’t have to compel anyone. Developers would want to preference their platform because it’s in their economic best interest. Consumers would want to spend more to get access to the platform (increasing ASP). Accessory makers would want to flood the market with accessories.
How can you call Android dominant as a platform if it has none of the hallmarks of a dominant platform?
You didn't. But Apple's various technologies are things they force on developers, so of course they get better uptake.
But their status as a monopoly (even though probably not in a legal sense) totally messes up that argument. You don't really buy an Apple phone. Instead, it's like a combination of rent and ownership, where it's always the worst interpretation for customers. Customers own the phone when it breaks, but they're only renting the phone when they want to just use it.
Developers do want to preference iOS because they make more money there, but if they want to exist in that walled garden, they must embrace and use the technologies Apple wants, and none of the ones they dislike. Otherwise, they cannot gain entry. Consumers must buy only Apple-approved software. Accessory makers must get licensing and approval from Apple or, in most cases, they cannot sell their devices, unless they're very simple.
So the Apple phone market is not like other markets. You can't directly compare with it anything else, because anyone involved is forced to comply with Apple's wishes. They don't get a choice.
Google's market, on the other hand, is far more lax. If you're willing to sideload apps, Google doesn't get a veto over what you use. And, for the most part, they don't force developers to do any particular thing to exist on Google Play, probably because of the first thing... if they're too draconian, people can just install other apps and other app stores without permission.
Google's market, in other words, functions much more like a classic market from economics. Apple's is totally different. Directly comparing the two doesn't work very well, because Apple can physically set the rules in a way that Google can't.
Because Android sells more phones to more people than anyone else? More people are using Android, by far, than iOS. By classical market definitions, they are dominant. You're mixing in Apple's monopoly powers and pointing to those, but their market is not even remotely free.
You’re missing the point. Why do developers put up with it? Why don’t developers say “screw you, I’m headed to Android”? If Android were truly dominant as a platform then attempts by other players to throw their weight around would fail. So the fact that Apple is able to do this is pretty good evidence that Android is not in fact dominant as a platform.
So that’s only one definition of dominant, it’s by far the least nuanced, and it doesn’t really apply to platforms.
I can cultivate the intuition about why it’s the wrong metric for thinking about platforms with a hypothetical. Imagine a terrorist attack blows up TSMC and Samsung and there’s a period of time with zero phone sales. Does Android lose its market position as a platform during that time when there’s no marketshare? Of course not. Because the right way of thinking about platform dominance isn’t marketshare, it’s installed base share. The installed base is the right metric because it captures the size of the group that is using Android as a platform.
But even installed base isn’t really granular enough, because some proportion of the installed base isn’t really using it as a platform in the classical sense - installing and using apps. Especially in low resource settings there’s a shit top of Android phones sold that have no meaningful engagement with the app ecosystem during their usage lifetime.
So really the right metric to start from is the installed base that uses Android as a platform.
And then you get to the question of dominance. While the US defines it narrowly as marketshare, the EUs definition is much better. The test they use is independence of action - can you raise prices with no expectation that your customers and partners will desert you.
Imagine two scenarios: a)Apple implements an annual fee just to use the OS. B)Android implements an annual fee just to use the OS. Which of those scenarios would drive more defections to the other side? A $100 annual fee on iOS would absolutely drive some users to Android. But a $100 annual fee on Android would drive a much larger defection towards iOS.
Sure. Android has more marketshare of cell phones. I don’t think that has translated into meaningful platform dominance.
We all agree that Microsoft is still dominant in the "Desktop/Laptop" OS market right?
Yet, Microsoft has only slightly more ability than Google to force customers and developers to move the way they want them too. And the biggest tool they have is Windows 10 ability to force updates.
If the definition of Dominance is one that requires Apple levels of influence of their vendors and users, then nobody in the tech industry is dominant.
Yet, Microsoft has only slightly more ability than Google to force customers and developers to move the way they want them too. And the biggest tool they have is Windows 10 ability to force updates.
If the definition of Dominance is one that requires Apple levels of influence of their vendors and users, then nobody in the tech industry is dominant.
I generally agree with this. But there’s also a huge helping of “we suck at defining markets for the purpose of generating insight.”
Take MS’s dominance. Apple takes a ridiculous percentage of the revenue share. And they don’t play at the bottom of the market. If you did a comparison of over $499 desktop/laptop OS share I’m not sure you could come to the conclusion that MS’s dominance is a given. Does comparing all desktops and laptops provide some insight? Sure. Does a more nuanced comparison of $499 and up desktops/laptops provide other useful insight? Definitely.
Then there’s the question of organizational sales vs. direct customer sales. MS is the indisputable dominant force in organizational sales. But if we chunk those out into discrete units of analysis how do we think about MS’s dominance in direct to consumer sales?
Gaming is another one. MS simply crushes gaming. They have total dominion in that space. Again, what happens to our analysis is we separate it out? How do we think about MS’s level of dominance in non-gamer, non-business settings?
None of this is to take away from what MS is doing. They should be justifiably proud of owning those niches in computing. My point is just that from the analysis side treating platforms as a single market can lead to facile analyses that don’t really shed much light.
What?
There are a couple of small companies like Sony and Valve that seem to make a lot of money on games
Gaming for laptops and desktops - gaming on a general purpose operating system. That was the context of the conversation.
Microsoft doesn't make money from gaming on desktops/laptops. I think my gaming PC traces its key back to a Windows XP copy I bought in college and managed to upgrade cheap/free every time ever since
Microsoft make money from sales of Windows to OEMs and enterprise.
So the only way they crush gaming is being the OS of choice for people who play with keyboard and mouse without actually monetizing it very much. KBM gaming isn't even a very large percentage of the market these days.
Microsoft make money from sales of Windows to OEMs and enterprise.
So the only way they crush gaming is being the OS of choice for people who play with keyboard and mouse without actually monetizing it very much. KBM gaming isn't even a very large percentage of the market these days.
wrylachan, you seem to be doing a very great deal of singing and dancing to avoid admitting that marketshare and/or installed base could define dominance. You're even getting to the point of trying to redefine 'market' to suit your specific argument, which is a strong indication that it's not working.
I’m trying to understand what dominance means if it doesn’t come with… you know… dominance. If dominance is just another word for “most marketshare” then that’s pretty boring isn’t it? But it’s not. Dominance in economic terms means market power - the ability to throw your weight around in a market with impunity. But despite having the most marketshare by far, Android doesn’t seem to enjoy that power.
What’s your theory? Honest question. Why is it that the marketshare that would come with market power in other markets does not seem to come with the same market power in smartphones? Why is Android able to achieve outsized martketshare without the ability to monetize it or push other players around?
My theory is that the reason we’re getting that dissonance is that we’re defining the market incorrectly.
A few things:
1. Microsoft has arguably greater dominance in end user computer OSes than Google for for smartphones, because almost everyone using iOS/Android could switch to Android/iOS and have not many showstopper issues (other than price for Android->iOS), but a lot of people (especially corporate users) can't switch from Windows to something else because they use one or more pieces of software that just doesn't exist on other computer OSes. The reason Microsoft doesn't visibly exploit that dominance any more is because they've had legal problems in the past related to dominance exploitation, and are somewhat gunshy due to that. Arguably, Google, and to a lesser extent Apple, have some level of the same gunshyness just from watching what happened to Microsoft.
2. Android as a platform is an odd duck. Google controls Android, but they don't control the underlying hardware, and unlike PCs, the underlying hardware vendors for smartphones are willing to be ogres (e.g. Qualcomm). This limits their ability to exploit marketshare dominance.
3. Google's income doesn't come from selling the platform, but owning it, from selling their users to other companies. Exploiting their dominance has a decent chance of raising the barriers to entry for users, so that acts as a counterweight.
I think this all adds up to Google's dominance being inherently more fragile than you'd expect given experience in other markets.
That’s a great post. I think the carriers are another check and balance. If Google does something customer unfriendly, the carriers will quickly restructure their sales environment to favor iOS. They have no allegiance to Android and they hold the keys to the vast majority of handset sales.
So despite owning the OS marketshare, Google is really only one of 4 centers of market power for Android smartphones - chip makers, OEMs, OS ecosystem and carriers. All 4 want to extract maximal profit from each cell user and can exert pressure if any of the others get too uppity.
I think the other check on Google’s market power is ASP. Android is selling into markets with little to no pricing elasticity. They simply can’t extract meaningfully more dollars from large swathes of their customers in the developing world and the low end of middle income countries.
So despite owning the OS marketshare, Google is really only one of 4 centers of market power for Android smartphones - chip makers, OEMs, OS ecosystem and carriers. All 4 want to extract maximal profit from each cell user and can exert pressure if any of the others get too uppity.
I think the other check on Google’s market power is ASP. Android is selling into markets with little to no pricing elasticity. They simply can’t extract meaningfully more dollars from large swathes of their customers in the developing world and the low end of middle income countries.
I think a clear example of dominance might be: Does the competitor react to the "dominant" vendors moves?
I think you could make a strong case that both Google and Apple react to each other as equals in this way. Apple Pay pushed google hard, but the constant evolution of Pixel and Google's Camera innovations pushed back on Apple hard.
ALSO, it's worth noting that when Microsoft has had major impacts as well even though it wasn't dominant in Smartphones and tablets. It's general dominance was enough to generate a reaction.
The biggest example are aspects of Windows Phone 8 that quickly appeared in android AND the Crazy quality Cameras that Google adopted quickly.
And on the other side, the success of the surface in artistic spaces drove iPad changes that made it the digital creation tool it now is.
I think you could make a strong case that both Google and Apple react to each other as equals in this way. Apple Pay pushed google hard, but the constant evolution of Pixel and Google's Camera innovations pushed back on Apple hard.
ALSO, it's worth noting that when Microsoft has had major impacts as well even though it wasn't dominant in Smartphones and tablets. It's general dominance was enough to generate a reaction.
The biggest example are aspects of Windows Phone 8 that quickly appeared in android AND the Crazy quality Cameras that Google adopted quickly.
And on the other side, the success of the surface in artistic spaces drove iPad changes that made it the digital creation tool it now is.
This is a bit ridiculous. First of all, the odds of a significant portion of people being able to upgrade Windows for cheap or free from XP is rare.
More importantly. Microsoft captures plenty of revenue on PC gaming, because they also sell games and they cell xbox gamepass for PC.
PC gaming make account for up to half of gamers (although I suspect most are multi-platform)
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/3140 ... lay-on-pcs
PC gaming is not as lucrative as console gaming, that's true, but to say Microsoft isn't capturing a significant portion of the revenue is to not be paying attention.
Mobile gaming counts too. That's how Apple is a trillion dollar company, amongst other revenue streams
About as likely as a significant portion of people being able to install video cards and get PC games to work
Uhhh, I mean, ok, I guess you can dispute the numbers if you want, but it would be nice to get a valid argument out of it.
I'd imagine a large portion of PC gamers are just using their normal laptop or desktop with another big portion running Omen (HP) or Alienware(Dell). No need to do anything yourself...Oh, and they are more likely to actually have GPUs in stock.
I'd imagine a large portion of PC gamers are just using their normal laptop or desktop with another big portion running Omen (HP) or Alienware(Dell). No need to do anything yourself...Oh, and they are more likely to actually have GPUs in stock.
Maybe the only markets you're really aware of are electronic ones? I mean, the kind of pull that Apple has is historically monopoly-only, and one of the main reasons to break them up.
Normal competitive markets don't look like Apple's, at all. Can you imagine any shingle company forcing new roofing standards on everyone just because that's what they wanted?
edit: In other words, Apple can do this because of their hardware DRM. It's because they can force their subset of the market into monopoly status. Google can't do that. Apple has power it shouldn't have based on its market share. Full-stack hardware DRM is a new thing in the world, so of course it's producing novel results.
You are confusing that DRM power with actual market power. Normally, a company would need like 90% market share to impose the decrees that Apple has. In a competitive environment, where people had full control of their iOS devices and anyone could sell them programs without Apple's approval, they would have very little ability to force anything on anyone. They wouldn't have any more power than Google does. They would, in fact, likely have substantially less.
I’m not sure why you’re so hung up in the Apple compare. The question isn’t “why is Apple able to do this?” the question is “why is Android NOT?” You also seem to be fixated on the developer piece which is least interesting. So put that aside and just look at basic monetization.
In most markets an 80%+ marketshare would allow you to push everyone around - your suppliers, your retailers, everyone. Not just in electronics. If Ford owned 80% of the market cars would be dramatically more expensive as Ford extracted rent. If Dewalt had 80% market share in power tools a battery powered skill saw would start at $400. Traditionally, in most markets you don’t need to achieve 100% monopoly status to push your business associates around.
I’m not asking why Google can’t do what Apple does, I’m asking why Google can’t do what other companies with similar outsized marketshare advantages can do in other markets (not just electronics markets)?