If anything, rent-seeking would be the other way, but that's still a big stretch.
The phone manufacturers know that searches are valuable to search engines, so they charge for it even though they're not doing anything but being a broker for their users. But while that is getting a cut (literally seeking rent), calling it "rent seeking" is a stretch, because clearly that brokering and OS space is naturally valuable and the phone companies aren't just injecting themselves into someone else's money-making process.
Google pays off phone manufacturers to sign onerous contract preventing them from installing other app stores or displaying other options on the home screen or during the setup process -> They then collect rent from the companies that have to offer their apps on the Play Store.
From wikipedia, "An example of rent-seeking in a modern economy is spending money on lobbying for government subsidies in order to be given wealth that has already been created." In this instance, the phone vendors are the politicians.
> No, I think it is a pretty clear example of rent-seeking on Google's behalf.
Not sure what conversation you're having in the above comment, but this is the one that I was responding to :)
The anti-competitive actions (paying off phone vendors) that Google takes are part of that rent-seeking behavior, just as companies that lobby politicians to increase barriers to entry so they can raise prices are engaging in rent-seeking.
If you want to nit-pick and say the play store pricing is the rent-seeking and the paying off of the phone vendors is the anti-competitive behavior, I wouldn't have a huge quibble with that.
> Google engages in anti-competitive behavior (ie. using their capital to increase the entry barriers for other app store markets on Android), so that they can then collect rent on their app store (among other things, like search/advertising).
There is an argument that could be made that companies taking a 30% cut of app store revenue is rent seeking, but it makes no sense to say that Google is paying Apple per-user search acquisition fees in iOS Safari so that Google can then turn around and collect fees in the iOS App Store (because obviously that's not a thing).
I still think what I'm saying is true, but agree that it is not quite the same issue.
GOOD
Here's the problem. You want to make it illegal for google to stop phone manufacturers from installing even more crapware than they do already? How would that be a win for anyone besides Samsung/LG/Sony/etc? Encouraging even more fracturing of the Android ecosystem and the lack of updates? Google is protecting consumer welfare. This should be encouraged, not looked at skeptically.
This is not the MS in the 90s situation where manufacturers couldn't install Linux instead of Windows. This would be MS saying you can't install BonziBuddy and sell it with our logo and services on it.
'Rent seeking' is real-estate.
You buy a property, you seek 'rent' for the rights to access it.
It's that simple.
It's considered different than other economic activity because it's not productive in nature.
Edit:
1) From Investoopedia: "Economic rent is the income earned from utilization of resource ownership. Entities that own resources can lend them to earn interest rents, lease them to earn rental income, or they may utilize their resources in other income-producing ways."
2) Here is Carl Marx agreeing with literally Adam Smith "Adam Smith correctly defines rent as “the price paid for the use of land” ([O.U.P., Vol. I, p. 162; Garnier,] t, I, p. 299) - in 'Theories of Surplus Value'.
Renting out a plot of land is the easiest, simplest, most obvious example of rent-seeking.
The ones getting paid tens billions of dollars annually seems like the obvious answer to me.
So what, the seller on any side of a transaction is the one who has the market power?
To make it simpler: if there was one employer in the entirety of Earth and 7 billion people who wanted a job - since the employer is paying the employee, the employee would have the market power?
Perhaps the argument is that Google is overpaying, and that's anti-competitive.
Same issue with Google - by using their market power to monopolize search power across devices and OSes, they are effectively locking out any other potential entrants. That this is being done to enhance a completely different line of business (ads) is classic anti-competitive behavior.
Not a monopoly. A monopsony.
Anti trust law prohibits both monopolies and monopsonys from engaging in anti competitive behavior.
You are trying to claim that monopsonys engaging in anti-competitive behavior are not illegal, when they are.
It's literally the opposite: rent-seeking on the behalf of Samsung, Apple - moreover, 'rent-seeking' is not remotely illegal.
If Google weren't paying manufacturers to not install other app stores, other app stores would be paying manufacturers to install them, which could result in a user experience that Google doesn't control but which users would blame Google for ("Android is slow/buggy!" when in fact it's third party software that is causing the performance issues). Their deals are arguably defensible since they don't block third party app stores entirely, just pre-installed ones.
I certainly see the issues with Google parlaying their dominance in the ad market to also dominate the mobile market, but I have a feeling this will be settled with some consent decrees to put up some guardrails in the ad market. The actual harm to consumers from Google's business model is pretty vague and is passed on through marketing expenses that trickle down into product/service prices. If Google disappeared, ads would still cost money and advertising expenses likely wouldn't be drastically lower.
There are a bunch of Android forks in the wild[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distrib...
That's absolutely correct. And some of those forks are significantly better than the Android OEM offerings by the phone manufacturers.
However, that's orthogonal to GP's point. Only a very small percentage[0] of Android users would even consider flashing custom roms, and even fewer would have the knowledge or confidence to do so.
As such, the impact of custom roms/no chrome is most likely rounding error for Google.
I'd point out that I've used custom roms quite a bit, initially because (as usual) my phone vendor stopped providing updates after a year and after that because custom roms are often better than stock roms.
But I'm not your typical user, as I'm technical and it really pisses me off that vendors use the lack of support to pressure folks to buy new phones.
[0] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19943324/how-many-users-... (an old link, but it's not likely that much has changed to increase the number of folks using custom roms -- quite likely the opposite)
No, I think it is a pretty clear example of rent-seeking on Google's behalf.
> phone manufacturers using their power in one market
Who has more market power - the disparate group of phone vendors who are legally barred from coordinating on things like this or the single actor that controls the only operating system package tenable for those phone vendors to use?