Live data from Hacker News

Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

ft.com

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#51
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ci…

Regarding Microsoft:

The U.S. remedy of splitting Microsoft up (which was over-turned on appeal) and led to the more limited U.S. Consent decree doesn't negate the findings of fact:

"Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, RealNetworks, Linux, and others." [0]

In Europe the EU consistently found against Microsoft and fined them very large sums (> €1.5B) over the course of more than 10 years due to monopolistic practices and refusing to implement judgements around bundled media-player, web-browser and lack of interoperability for server (APIs). [1]

"Microsoft entered into a consent decree in 1994 that barred Microsoft from conditioning the availability of Windows licenses or varying their prices based on whether OEMs distributed other operating systems.[8] Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said that the decree was effective in allowing Dell and HP to offer Linux computers". [2]

This was later nick-named the Windows Tax, but at the time it prevented alternative OSs such as Digital Research DOS (DR-DOS) from gaining much traction as a pre-installed OS (I owned a company back then that did pre-install DR-DOS and it was much better than MS-DOS).

Regarding Google/Android:

"While it might not be an official requirement, being granted a Google apps license will go a whole lot easier if you join the Open Handset Alliance. The OHA is a group of companies committed to Android -- Google's Android -- and members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved devices. That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork.

Acer was bit by this requirement when it tried to build devices that ran Alibaba's Aliyun OS in China. Aliyun is an Android fork, and when Google got wind of it, Acer was told to shut the project down or lose its access to Google apps. Google even made a public blog post about it:

"While Android remains free for anyone to use as they would like, only Android compatible devices benefit from the full Android ecosystem. By joining the Open Handset Alliance, each member contributes to and builds one Android platform -- not a bunch of incompatible versions." [3]

Also in that article is a good overview (albeit from 2013) of how Google has progressively moved open source functionality into the closed source Google applications.

And from a different source (lauding the move to Play services) there's:

"Google not only has pulled these services and their respective APIs out of the OS, it has made it easy for application developers to use them. The past few days here at Google I/O we've seen just how easy it can be to add these features to an app, because Google is doing all the heavy lifting. Developers only need to reference the particular thing they need from the Google Play Services application in their code, and the magic happens when you run it on your phone." [4]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation#Anti-trus...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows#...

[3] http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-10/21/googles-iron-...

[4] http://www.androidcentral.com/new-google-play-services

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#52
post #7
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.

I don't understand that law as well. So, you start being good, keep 'mostly' doing good and grow, and at one point, what has been good suddenly becomes bad just because you have grown more than anybody else?

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#53
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ci…

Regarding Microsoft: The U.S. remedy of splitting Microsoft up (which was over-turned on appeal) and led to the more limited U.S. Consent decree doesn't negate the findings of fact: "Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actio…

Granted, the prohibition from building non-Google approved devices, along with stopping Acer from building Aliyun OS devices looks bad.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#54
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

In my opinion, it's less problematic to run a closed environment, than to run an "open" environment, only to swindle the people that you just invited in your backyard.

The whole idea is that if you're going to let people build on your platform but compete with them and leverage your platform in order to do so, you effectively lured people into thinking that it was possible to build on your platform when in fact it was not, and that you benefit from this misunderstanding. And that's dishonest. If you open a "public market", then you should be accountable for keeping it fair and unbiased.

Keep in mind that the last part about how it "should" be is an opinion and not fact on the law.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#55
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In my opinion, it's less problematic to run a closed environment, than to run an "open" environment, only to swindle the people that you just invited in your backyard. The whole idea is that if you're going to let people build on your platform but compete with them and leverage your platform in order to do so, you effectively lured people into thinking that it was possible to build on your platform when in fact it wa…

Thanks for the thoughtful response. You make an especially good point about being accountable when running a "public market" that I hadn't really considered.

Re: Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

#56
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, it starts with a slightly different form of sleezy behavior: Google paid a university to write "academic studies" that Google would then claim demonstrated that Google wasn't anticompetitive.

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-and-george-mason-unive...

One of the professors, who was the author of many of those "studies" is Joshua Wright, who thereafter took the FTC Commissioner position in 2013. Note that the Google checks to GMU started the same month as the FTC probe began.

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/24/googles_insidious_shadow_lob...

The FTC investigation around this time had found significant cause to go after Google:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-o...

Despite this, the FTC decided to close the investigation without any significant change on January 3rd, 2013:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/01/googl...

And the Google-paid advocate above, Joshua Wright, was signed in as FTC Commissioner just ten days later:

https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/biographies/joshua-d-wright

Note that the close relationship between Google and this White House have been well documented. Googlers are some of Obama's top contributors in the previous Presidential election, numerous Googlers have taken high-ranking positions at the White House, and Google executives or representatives visit weekly. So I have a hard time buying that any of this is coincidence.

And the rumor is, that within like a month of Joshua Wright resigning, the FTC started investigating Google antitrust again.

Post reply on HN