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

EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 121 posts

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#61

Post by fauigerzigerk »

jbob2000 wrote: post #4

Totally 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?…

>isn't an antitrust suit a bit disingenuous? Isn't that like saying "hey, you guys are dominating over here, we want you to stop"

That's not what the EC is saying. They're saying "hey guys, you're welcome to dominate over here, but as that dominant player you cannot use such and such licensing practices that we consider anti-competitive"

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#62

Post by euyyn »

u_me_him wrote: post #56
epalmer wrote: post #53

In 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

And in fact the new Maps shipped first on iOS.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#63

Post by justJanne »

bad_user wrote: post #55
kuschku wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

It’s not in the article – but in the actual complaint from the European Commission.

An example where this happened is http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-...

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#64

Post by tdkl »

ricw wrote: post #31
NiKMic wrote: post #18

I'm not sure if I am understanding it well. Does the EU have an issue with Google Chrome coming pre-installed with Android? In that case, shouldn't Microsoft face the same penalties since IE/Edge comes pre-installed on the Windows OS? I believe that these pre-installed apps can't be uninstalled (because it might happen that you end up with no browsers on your phone), but would making the app uninstallable solve this…

The difference is the monopoly that Google has obtained in Europe with more than 80% market share. Similar to how Microsoft was fined for making the internet explorer the default on their platform and thereby dominating the market (windows) a decade ago, Google is likely going to be fined and forced to open their monopolistic platform to fairer competition. The thinking behind this is that you can't have terms that p…

Except you can disable all that on Android and use other services/apps. It's also debatable if Android gained that market share because of this alleged forcing of their apps/services. I bet people chose Android because of price (Apple being a pricey alternative), more free apps/sideloading ability and they actually wanted tighter integration with Google services (fucking surprise).

The MS situation was similar in case that no-one used Windows just to use Internet Explorer, but the difference is that MS made it very unclear to disable/remove IE, not to mention the pain with setting the default apps (which came with XP SP2).

It's just an EU money grab (am EU citizen and only use Chrome).

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#65

Post by justJanne »

euyyn wrote: post #60
kuschku wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

In theory, yes, in practice, Google can terminate the contract whenever they want – so they just would terminate the contract with the first company, regardless if the second company is actually the same legal entity.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#66

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bad_user wrote: post #55
kuschku wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> 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.

The real question is, why is it bad for Google to require Google Search and Google Chrome if you want Google Play, but OK for Apple to require their App Store if you want iOS?

Obviously you have the positions reversed then, but it's still the same sort of tying, and I'm pretty sure those are the correct positions for Google too. You aren't pushing Google apps on people who want the Play Store, you're pushing the Play Store on people who want Google apps.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#67

Post by x0x0 »

sievebrain wrote: post #23
LunaSea wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the Google services would be replaced by (at first lower quality) European versions. This would create a huge investment and tech sector growth wave. One of the best things to happen to the European tech scene since the beginning of the Internet. You can see this happening in Russia, China and India although for different reasons. Even if this case doesn't change anything I think we will see Google's involvement…

All? At first, lower quality? I think you massively underestimate how much investment is required to produce even a basic search engine, let alone one that eventually catches up to what Google has produced. And that's just search. Now throw in Gmail, Maps, Android, Chrome, etc ... these are international collaborations for a reason.

Replacements exist for all of them.

search: bing, yandex, baidu, naver

email: fastmail, hotmail, yandex email

maps: bing maps, nokia maps, open street maps (or whatever the collaboration is called)

browser: firefox, etc

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#69

Post by unlinker »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #66
bad_user wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> 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. The real question is, why is it bad for Google to require Google Search and Google Chrome if you want Google Play, but OK for Apple to require their App Store if you want iOS? Obviously…

Apple is not licencing iOS to OEMs. They are also very far away from a monopoly.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#70

Post by AnthonyMouse »

unlinker wrote: post #69
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The real question is, why is it bad for Google to require Google Search and Google Chrome if you want Google Play, but OK for Apple to require their App Store if you want iOS? Obviously…

Apple is not licencing iOS to OEMs. They are also very far away from a monopoly.

> Apple is not licencing iOS to OEMs.

In other words they're also tying iOS to their hardware and vice versa. This is supposed to make it less of an antitrust issue?

> They are also very far away from a monopoly.

They sure look like a monopoly to an iOS app developer or iOS app customer who wants app store competition to drive down app store margins.

Post reply on HN