luispedrocoelho

It's not clear to me if google is allowed to demand that non-google app phones not be called Android or if that would also be considered anti-competitive.

If they must allow Android branded phones that do not come with google apps, then the EC is making it harder for consumers to choose by disallowing the normal use of a brand to signal what it is that you are buying when you buy something. People may buy an Android cheap phone thinking that they are getting what is now an Android phone and end up with a shittier product.

Under a normal market, these OEM-branded phones would be sold as "ShitPhone OS 12.0" and it'd be clear that you have the option between paying slightly more for Android, a lot more for iOS or go with ShitPhone 12.0

As a matter of law, the EC may be right, but as a matter of user experience, the idea that the Android market suffers from not having enough OEM-installed software on devices is a bit of a stretch. In all android phones/tablets I have seen there are a few shitty OEM apps that I have never found to be even close in quality to the google versions.

The EC claims that google have "denied European consumers the benefits of effective competition in the important mobile sphere", but I fear this will mean that cheap Android phones will have a shitty OEM-branded webbrowser and some random search engine link.

But he did not purchase health insurance, he purchased travel insurance.

It seems to me that the whole thing is "I bought travel insurance and I thought I would be getting global health insurance, but it turns out it's really travel insurance."

I guess because the NHS is paid through your taxes it may not have been so blindingly obvious to someone in the UK that anything similar to what he is asking for would have cost at least "300£ per month" (and that is assuming he is young and healthy) instead of "300£ for 18 months".

> In reality, most claimants are going to spend much less than 1% of that £5 million limit before they get flown home. It only really applies to people who are at death's door and end up with a long stay in intensive care, or need a fully-staffed medical flight to get them home.

Exactly, but you're saying it like it's a bad thing instead of "this is just what travel insurance is and why it's so cheap."

I never claimed it was in bad faith and I don't think it was. Considering incentives and conflicts of interest is perfectly normal and does not mean that someone is operating in bad faith.

I just claim that it's reasonable for the company not to take it at face value as the doctor is not impartial and may have been considering a different standard for "not fit to fly." I certainly do not take it at face value. Could he have been put on a plane with extra medical assistance, for example? That may still have been cheaper than surgery.

I think what the guy did was the best choice if he can afford it, but I also think it's not unreasonable from the company to say that it was not what travel insurance covers.

The incentive to say so is pretty clear: if he flies away, not only does the doctor lose a 15,000 costumer, he can also be liable if anything does go wrong.

Maybe he was indeed in no shape to fly, but he should have argued it properly in those days. Even now, it seems more like "it would have been awful to fly economy" and not "it would have been dangerous".

To be sure, travel insurance is very often a very good idea.

But it's travel insurance not "whole-world, any hospital, health insurance" (which I am sure you can buy, but not at the same price).