Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#31

Post by bad_user »

> abusing a dominant position in mobile operating systems to pre-install its own applications and services in smartphones

So Google made Android specifically for distributing their apps and services and everybody knew this and agreed with it. It wasn't even in fine print, it was written all over it. Everybody knew what they were getting into. I don't understand how can they abuse their "position in mobile operating systems" to pre-install their apps when that has been the only reason Android exists.

Is that the sound of incompetence or that of malevolence? Are they aiming for extortion? Is that it?

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#32

Post by gefh »

digi_owl wrote: post #8
levemi wrote: post #2

I don't understand why Google gets attacked when at least you can install competing services and you can't on iOS. Why does iOS get a pass? If Google built the hardware itself it could lock it down all it wants? That's the reason? You can get Firefox on Android and not on iOS. You can replace almost anything, and on iOS you can't. You can disable many of the default apps on Android, I don't know if you can on iOS.

Because antitrust is about leverage. Using your position in one market to get an advantage in another. Apple is the only provider of hardware running iOS, so leverage do not play a part there.

Not so long ago, physical phones and software markets were separate. Apple did a fine job muscling in its app store by leveraging the early dominance of its phone hardware.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#33

Post by cageface »

moreira wrote: post #7
levemi wrote: post #2

I don't understand why Google gets attacked when at least you can install competing services and you can't on iOS. Why does iOS get a pass? If Google built the hardware itself it could lock it down all it wants? That's the reason? You can get Firefox on Android and not on iOS. You can replace almost anything, and on iOS you can't. You can disable many of the default apps on Android, I don't know if you can on iOS.

The problem, I believe, is the market share. If your OS is only on 3 or even 4 out of 10 phones, then you're not in a dominant position, and whatever you do, you're not abusing your market power, which is what antitrust is all about. So Apple and their OSs will always be safe from this kind of thing because they're simply not the biggest player when it comes to market share.

So why is it that when people want to paint Apple in a positive light they dismiss market share and point to profits? If Apple pulling in 90% of the profits in the industry is what counts when evaluating the relative strengths of both platforms then why doesn't it matter when considering abuses of market position?

I think it's pretty clear that despite selling a minority of devices Apple has at least as much power to drive the overall direction of the market as Google.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#34

Post by Rangi42 »

bad_user wrote: post #29
glenndebacker wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is quite simple really, Apple has in no way the market share that a Google has. The impact of their anti-competitive decisions are vairy low. The problem is also not having big marketshare but having it AND doing things that may be anti-competitive. European companies have also brought before court for the same reasons. Btw Apple had also been brought to court for not applying European laws especially regarding wa…

You're trying to make some sense of this, but no, there is no sense and it isn't simple either. For one because Google's Android does not qualify as a monopoly and the mere existence of Apple's iOS which has 20% of the European market is testament to that. But also because having a monopoly isn't illegal and I'm quite curious what anti-trust charges they are going to bring, because as the parent says, Android has bee…

If cornering 80% of the market is so terrible, the EU should make it illegal to sell the Nth Android phone that pushes past 79%, and/or make it illegal for the customer to buy such a phone.

The absurdity of such a proposed law should make it obvious that Google is doing nothing wrong by selling popular devices with a certain operating system.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#35

Post by manyhats »

Rangi42 wrote: post #34
bad_user wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're trying to make some sense of this, but no, there is no sense and it isn't simple either. For one because Google's Android does not qualify as a monopoly and the mere existence of Apple's iOS which has 20% of the European market is testament to that. But also because having a monopoly isn't illegal and I'm quite curious what anti-trust charges they are going to bring, because as the parent says, Android has bee…

If cornering 80% of the market is so terrible, the EU should make it illegal to sell the Nth Android phone that pushes past 79%, and/or make it illegal for the customer to buy such a phone. The absurdity of such a proposed law should make it obvious that Google is doing nothing wrong by selling popular devices with a certain operating system.

Consider other historical antitrust battles. It's often not about dominance in one niche, but leveraging that dominance into other areas and limiting innovation there.

By your assertion, you would be happy to have had IE tightly integrated into Windows since the early 00s and make it extremely difficult for typical users to install another browser. Competing browsers would also be at a technical disadvantage to IE since they don't control the underlying OS. After all, Windows is popular, why shouldn't they...

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#36

Post by SpaceX_Tech »

cageface wrote: post #33
moreira wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem, I believe, is the market share. If your OS is only on 3 or even 4 out of 10 phones, then you're not in a dominant position, and whatever you do, you're not abusing your market power, which is what antitrust is all about. So Apple and their OSs will always be safe from this kind of thing because they're simply not the biggest player when it comes to market share.

So why is it that when people want to paint Apple in a positive light they dismiss market share and point to profits? If Apple pulling in 90% of the profits in the industry is what counts when evaluating the relative strengths of both platforms then why doesn't it matter when considering abuses of market position? I think it's pretty clear that despite selling a minority of devices Apple has at least as much power to…

You bring up the exact point that I was just thinking about, namely why market share is used as a criteria for defining whether certain behaviors fall into the anticompetitive realm but profit share isn’t.

Apple taking 90% of overall worldwide smartphone profits may not be good for competition or the consumer, yet that isn’t regulated, not that I am suggesting that it should be. Apple obviously has enormous power due to its profitability that gives it a competitive advantage.

I guess the thing I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around is exactly when normal competitive practices become anticompetitive, requiring legal intervention from regulators, and why these seem to center solely around market share and not other things like profits.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#37

Post by jpt4 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #20
hartpuff wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you seriously believe in such endemic corruption, you could equally fantasise that Google has enough money to buy a not-guilty verdict, yet the EU will remain impartial?

In fact, in the US, Google HAS bought a non-guilty verdict. The US counterpart of Ms. Vestager is the commissioner of the FTC. For two years, that person was a paid Google spokesperson, and the case against Google that had been building here in the US was found by their staff to have merit, yet quietly buried. As soon as their paid shill stepped down last year, the investigation was reopened. (Sources can be provided…

I would be very interested in reading any sources on this you may choose to provide, if you please.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#38

Post by pyrale »

bad_user wrote: post #31

> abusing a dominant position in mobile operating systems to pre-install its own applications and services in smartphones So Google made Android specifically for distributing their apps and services and everybody knew this and agreed with it. It wasn't even in fine print, it was written all over it. Everybody knew what they were getting into. I don't understand how can they abuse their " position in mobile operating…

Arguing that you broke the law in a very deliberate and public way doesn't sound like a very good defense. Neither does accusing the state attorneys of being malevolent, incompetents or crooks.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#39

Post by sgift »

cageface wrote: post #33
moreira wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem, I believe, is the market share. If your OS is only on 3 or even 4 out of 10 phones, then you're not in a dominant position, and whatever you do, you're not abusing your market power, which is what antitrust is all about. So Apple and their OSs will always be safe from this kind of thing because they're simply not the biggest player when it comes to market share.

So why is it that when people want to paint Apple in a positive light they dismiss market share and point to profits? If Apple pulling in 90% of the profits in the industry is what counts when evaluating the relative strengths of both platforms then why doesn't it matter when considering abuses of market position? I think it's pretty clear that despite selling a minority of devices Apple has at least as much power to…

Profits are important for the market you are in. Market share can be important for dominating markets you are currently not in. That is the base of all antitrust probes: A dominant market share is not illegal. Using that dominant market share to boost your position in other markets is illegal.

So, the central question is: Does Google use the dominant market share of Android and its position to further their position in other markets, e.g. the browser market (Chrome), the mail application market (GMail App), news market (Google News) and so on. If yes, there is a problem with european antitrust law.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#40

Post by SpaceX_Tech »

manyhats wrote: post #35
Rangi42 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If cornering 80% of the market is so terrible, the EU should make it illegal to sell the Nth Android phone that pushes past 79%, and/or make it illegal for the customer to buy such a phone. The absurdity of such a proposed law should make it obvious that Google is doing nothing wrong by selling popular devices with a certain operating system.

Consider other historical antitrust battles. It's often not about dominance in one niche, but leveraging that dominance into other areas and limiting innovation there. By your assertion, you would be happy to have had IE tightly integrated into Windows since the early 00s and make it extremely difficult for typical users to install another browser. Competing browsers would also be at a technical disadvantage to IE si…

You make a very good point and I certainly don't think that IE being tightly coupled to the underlying OS would be good for browser competition. At the same time couldn't I argue that a company such as Apple having so much power over their suppliers due to their market position, and profitability, is also not good for overall competition?

It's certainly going to be difficult if not impossible for a new entrant in the smartphone world to out compete an incumbent like Apple when negotiating contracts with Foxconn.

As I said in my other comment in this thread, I'm having a hard time understanding why certain behaviors get labeled anticompetitive while other behaviors, that ultimately may be just as detrimental to competition, don't.

I admittedly don't have a very deep understanding of these issues and I am perfectly willing to admit I might be completely wrong but I would love to hear your and other readers' thoughts.

Post reply on HN