Please do not submit links to mobile versions of the article.
I assume people are submitting from their phones, where it would be hard not to. We always change these to the canonical URL when we see them.
EU hits Google with second antitrust charge
51–60 of 121 posts
Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge
#52The best possible outcome I could see from something like this is the opening up of the Play Store ecosystem to third party Android forks. The contention is over Google licensing Android branding and its proprietary apps running on top of the AOSP and requiring them all be shipped together. The problem isn't the OS itself, it is the Play Store hegemony and the fact you cannot reasonably ship an Android phone without…
> But the store is a proprietary and effectively closed app ecosystem completely under Google's control, thus the issue of monopoly exploitation. Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using that monopoly to gain an advantage in newer markets is. And the problem with this argument is that you're getting this backwards: when Android 1.0 shipped, Google already had a foothold with Search, Gmail and Maps. The whole purpose of…
The violations are that SAMSUNG can not ship devices with Kindle-Android.
You can only ship non-Google-droid devices if none of your devices use the Play Store, and you can only ship Play Store devices if none of your devices are non-Google-droid devices.
That’s what the EU complains about, and that’s what is worthy of several billion in punishment.
Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge
#53In the US here. I just went from being an iphone user of long standing to a android user mostly because I want google apps over at least iphone apps. Especially the map apps. I did install firefox asap on my nexus 6p but I use chrome and firefox both.
I love the bundle. I was happy with the iphone bundle but I did not love it.
My youngest daughter is very happy I came over to the darkside. She has been an Android user for a few year.
Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple's market share in Europe is so laughable they literally can do whatever they want, but not allowing other browser engines on iOS is certainly not grounds for an antitrust lawsuit.
How is it not? The issue in the case of Google is the requirement for Chrome. So how is that any different here? (Other than the fact that you can actually install another browser on Android if you want, where you don't even have the option on an iPhone). > EU antitrust regulators said that by requiring mobile phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser to get access to other Google…
The restrictions only apply for monopolies. Apple isn't even close to a monopoly, while Android may already be one.
Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the store is a proprietary and effectively closed app ecosystem completely under Google's control, thus the issue of monopoly exploitation. Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using that monopoly to gain an advantage in newer markets is. And the problem with this argument is that you're getting this backwards: when Android 1.0 shipped, Google already had a foothold with Search, Gmail and Maps. The whole purpose of…
The violations are that SAMSUNG can not ship devices with Kindle-Android. You can only ship non-Google-droid devices if none of your devices use the Play Store, and you can only ship Play Store devices if none of your devices are non-Google-droid devices. That’s what the EU complains about, and that’s what is worthy of several billion in punishment.
The article has this to say:
"EU antitrust regulators said that by requiring mobile phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser to get access to other Google apps, the U.S. company was harming consumers by stifling competition."
I don't see Samsung and Kindle-Android mentioned. Also, assuming these are contractual obligations that Samsung agreed to, how can it be illegal? Don't they have people that read contracts? Or is this an issue of having your cake and eating it too?
> worthy several billion in punishment
That's stretching it. Why are they guilty and why should the fine be so big?
Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge
#56In the US here. I just went from being an iphone user of long standing to a android user mostly because I want google apps over at least iphone apps. Especially the map apps. I did install firefox asap on my nexus 6p but I use chrome and firefox both. I love the bundle. I was happy with the iphone bundle but I did not love it. My youngest daughter is very happy I came over to the darkside. She has been an Android use…
You can get all the google apps in the iphone
Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge
#57Totally implausible scenario, but what would happen if Google were to say "to hell with this" and just completely pull out of the EU? Like full-stop, nothing Google touching the EU. Would there be riots? Would governments try to force Google back? Like, are they so essential to digital life that a complete withdrawal would cause some amount of chaos? And if that's the case, isn't an antitrust suit a bit disingenuous?…
The one good thing is that people may finally stop suggesting it as an option in every discussion of antitrust actions.
Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably seeing the stock lose more than half of it's value by pulling from the biggest market it operates in would see Google reverting their stance quickly. Also, most likely, you would see bing+other local search engines gain traction, same for mail, maps, etc. Lets not forget, that a lot (majority?) of google search users use whatever the search engine is by default on their browsers and aren't really concerned a…
Actually, a lot of people already use bing maps instead of Google maps because of poor quality of Google maps in several European markets. In my city in northern Germany (300k population), Google hasn’t updated anything since 2004. Refuses to integrate transit, although transit data is available in the requested format. While Bing and Here maps both have data from last month, with 3D imagery, and realtime transit dat…
Interesting. In Belgium Google Maps is still many times more useful than either Bing or Apple maps. Transit info, realtime traffic, everything.
Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably seeing the stock lose more than half of it's value by pulling from the biggest market it operates in would see Google reverting their stance quickly. Also, most likely, you would see bing+other local search engines gain traction, same for mail, maps, etc. Lets not forget, that a lot (majority?) of google search users use whatever the search engine is by default on their browsers and aren't really concerned a…
Actually, a lot of people already use bing maps instead of Google maps because of poor quality of Google maps in several European markets. In my city in northern Germany (300k population), Google hasn’t updated anything since 2004. Refuses to integrate transit, although transit data is available in the requested format. While Bing and Here maps both have data from last month, with 3D imagery, and realtime transit dat…
And for people on foot/bike there is OpenStreetMap, with way better coverage of parks, foot paths and stuff like that. Often even outside the cities, which are covered nearly perfectly.
Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge
#60The best possible outcome I could see from something like this is the opening up of the Play Store ecosystem to third party Android forks. The contention is over Google licensing Android branding and its proprietary apps running on top of the AOSP and requiring them all be shipped together. The problem isn't the OS itself, it is the Play Store hegemony and the fact you cannot reasonably ship an Android phone without…
> but you can always pull a Cyanogenmod and ship a phone without those apps installed. That’s exactly what you can’t. Google only allows you to ship Google Apps on one of your devices if you ship it on all. Which is the most important part the EC complains about.
Can't you just have two subcompanies, one that ships devices with Google apps and one that ships them without? Contracts signed by one of them shouldn't be able to bind the other, no?