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

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#41

Post by pyrale »

SpaceX_Tech wrote: post #36
cageface wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Apple obviously has enormous power due to its profitability that gives it a competitive advantage.

The law doesn't care about competitive advantage. It cares about making sure that your competitive dominance doesn't translate into dominating other markets.

For instance, Microsoft dominating personal OS market and making sure that their product stays on top is OK. Microsoft using their domination of that market to drive competition out of other markets is not.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#42

Post by cageface »

sgift wrote: post #39
cageface wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Apple is clearly levering the market power and integration of iOS and their other services to drive their agenda in TV, music, mobile payments, cloud storage, music and video production software, etc etc. I don't see much difference here.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#43

Post by bad_user »

pyrale wrote: post #38
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.

Building a product whose price tag, contract and purpose has been clear from day one and that had organic growth can't be against the law. The first Android phone in the world, with version 1.0, the HTC Dream released in 2008, was delivered with Google's apps, including Search, Gmail, Maps, YouTube, Talk, Contacts, Calendar and Android Market (now Google Play). And from a timid version 1 to reach a dominant market position, that's not breaking the law either. Unless we live in some twisted parallel universe.

And yes, I am accusing the state attorneys of being either malevolent, incompetent or crooks, especially since they are doing it on (my) taxpayer's money.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#44

Post by SpaceX_Tech »

pyrale wrote: post #41
SpaceX_Tech wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Apple obviously has enormous power due to its profitability that gives it a competitive advantage. The law doesn't care about competitive advantage. It cares about making sure that your competitive dominance doesn't translate into dominating other markets. For instance, Microsoft dominating personal OS market and making sure that their product stays on top is OK. Microsoft using their domination of that market to d…

That makes a lot of sense but just to play devil's advocate are we considering the OS/App market separate from the hardware market? If so, and considering Apple makes a not insignificant amount from the App Store and doesn't allow competing stores on iPhone hardware, wouldn't that be an example of trying to dominate another market?

Again, I don't want to come off as needlessly argumentative, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of this topic.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#45

Post by iam-TJ »

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…

I suspect one part of the rationale behind this is that as Android has gained dominance Google has moved some core API functions out of the generic AOSP source-code (which everyone can use) and into the Google Play services which require the device manufacturer to sign a contract for, which apparently also includes terms that have - at least in the past as I understand it - required pre-installation (possibly in prominent positions) of Google applications.

On that basis there is a strong correlation with the anti-trust convictions of Microsoft over bundling Internet Explorer into the Windows OS which effectively destroyed the paid-application model for web browsers (Netscape - which had 90% market share - could no longer succeed whilst charging ~US$20 (UK£15) and (AOL/Netscape) transferred the code to the Mozilla Foundation).

apologies for glossing over fine-detail but I ran out of my daily parenthesis allowance.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#46

Post by digi_owl »

gefh wrote: post #32
digi_owl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The app store story is longer and thornier than that.

It starts back with the iPod, a device that was at first wedded to Mac by software and hardware (first model used FireWire, not USB).

Only with the release of a USB model, and subsequently iTunes on Windows do it pick up steam.

Then came the music store, and Apple got in hot water on multiple front over that one.

The first iPhone was bootstrapped on top of that, and the App Store only came about after jailbreakers started building a third party ecosystem of apps.

And more recently Apple got into trouble over ebook price fixing, iirc.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#47

Post by bad_user »

iam-TJ wrote: post #45
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…

I suspect one part of the rationale behind this is that as Android has gained dominance Google has moved some core API functions out of the generic AOSP source-code (which everyone can use) and into the Google Play services which require the device manufacturer to sign a contract for, which apparently also includes terms that have - at least in the past as I understand it - required pre-installation (possibly in prom…

I know that contractual conditions for Google Play aren't so easy on phone makers, but then again phone makers are free to build their own marketplace and ecosystem. I know at least Samsung tried it, their Galaxy phones shipping with a parallel marketplace, in addition with Google Play. Didn't work out.

I don't know specifics of things moved out of AOSP. If that's true, then there's some logic to it. But I did use CianogenMod without Google Play on it. It's still usable. Though certain things like Android's push notification system cannot happen without Google's infrastructure and that can't simply be free, even if the integration would be in AOSP. There might be truth to this, not saying otherwise.

On Microsoft, I blame them for many things, like for killing BeOS or for fueling SCO's lawsuit against Linux or now for racketeering in the mobile industry, but bringing anti-trust charges because of Internet Explorer and splitting them up (as was the plan) would have been a terrible and unjust ruling. Netscape killed themselves and sorry to say it, but Internet Explorer was not only free and bundled, but technically superior. And that was fine IMHO, because in its place Mozilla was born and the rest is history. Regardless, compare Microsoft of the nineties to what Apple is doing now with iOS. Makes Microsoft of the nineties look quite open by comparison, doesn't it? And can you imagine a phone or a computer not shipping with a browser included by default?

Speaking of browsers, Android is the only mainstream mobile OS that allows third-party browsers. Firefox is currently only possible for Android.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#48

Post by sgift »

cageface wrote: post #42
sgift wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Apple is clearly levering the market power and integration of iOS and their other services to drive their agenda in TV, music, mobile payments, cloud storage, music and video production software, etc etc. I don't see much difference here.

Dominant market power and leveraging it are needed. Apple may leverage their market power, but they aren't dominant. Let me ask directly: Do you not understand it (so, do further explanations help) or do you not want to understand it because it goes against your positions? Both are ok, just asking for clarification to make sure I don't waste your and my time.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#49

Post by cageface »

sgift wrote: post #48
cageface wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is clearly levering the market power and integration of iOS and their other services to drive their agenda in TV, music, mobile payments, cloud storage, music and video production software, etc etc. I don't see much difference here.

Dominant market power and leveraging it are needed. Apple may leverage their market power, but they aren't dominant. Let me ask directly: Do you not understand it (so, do further explanations help) or do you not want to understand it because it goes against your positions? Both are ok, just asking for clarification to make sure I don't waste your and my time.

They are utterly dominant in the one metric Apple boosters usually claim is the one that counts. So why is that metric suddenly irrelevant now? I realize that as the law is written this may not matter but if we're discussing whether the government should intervene here it's perfectly relevant.

I'm an iOS developer by the way so I'm not anti Apple. I just think there is already healthy competition in mobile and government intervention is going to hurt consumers in this case. Apple can regain market share any time it chooses to by lowering its unprecedented profit margins.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#50

Post by glenndebacker »

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…

> For one because Google's Android does not qualify as a monopoly

They have over 70% of marketshare in the top 5 european countries. They may be technically not a monopoly, with those percentages their actions have a bigger impact and can certainly disturb a market.

> And the reason for why it doesn't make sense is because Google charges no licence money for Android

If I'm remember correctly that was also the argument some used regarding the Internet explorer case or Windows Media player. It was given away free.

Again it isn't about having a big market share, the price of the fact that an OS is flexible. It's about using your position to potentially disrupt a market.

Then again is also not because the EU is making a case that Google will be automatically found guilty or it won't be possible to defend themself.

> Oh, come on, you know that ain't true. They are targeting Google specifically because they don't want to share their Search & News revenue with a dying mass-media industry. And I'm saying this as an European.

European cartels, anti competitive behaviour etc have received the same scrutiny in the past. I think the highest fine is still the 990 million euro's Kone, Otis, Schindler and ThyssenKrupp received and they are European.

The reason why I'm stating this because I'm sick of tired hearing in these kind of discussions that Google only gets targeted because they are American while that is certainly not the case.

Post reply on HN