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

81–90 of 121 posts

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#81

Post by ocdtrekkie »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #70
unlinker wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And Tesla has a monopoly on making Teslas. Your definition of "monopoly" is inaccurate.

Android is 85% of the smartphone market. iOS is 13% of the smartphone market. Android is a monopoly, iOS is not.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#82

Post by ocdtrekkie »

wnevets wrote: post #19
pjc50 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And as a result they have terrible sales: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/26/amazon-fi...

Is that really because of the amazon store? >There were many interesting anomalies in the launch of the Fire Phone. The $200 price tag for a 32GB version on an AT&T contract – the same price range as the iPhone 5S or Samsung GS5 Their tables are doing much better. http://www.geekwire.com/2016/50-fire-tablet-vaults-amazon-in...

Their tablets are primarily sold as e-Readers. The app store isn't a primary need, and they don't really directly compete with Android tablets, even though they're similar.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#83

Post by ocdtrekkie »

patrickaljord wrote: post #75
kyrra wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Details are in the EU's press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm The key points: > requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps; > preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing op…

> requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps; Google gives away Android for free. If it can't put google search and ads on it, it won't be able to make money to keep funding Android. Banning Google Search from Android will cut its funding,…

Actually, Android would probably thrive if it was unprofitable. It'd end up in the hands of the open source community, instead of a greedy corporation controlling it with secret contracts.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#84

Post by ocdtrekkie »

u_me_him wrote: post #30
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…

Neither do I. I would not be surprised at all if some company is behind this.

As with most corporate law issues, there are plaintiffs that requested this investigation. Microsoft and several other companies complained.

But the reality is, what Google is doing IS illegal. It's illegal in the US too, but Google bought off the FTC Commissioner and fabricated some academic studies and donates to a large number of our current elected officials re-election campaigns. Aka: Our government won't touch them.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#85

Post by patrickaljord »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #83
patrickaljord wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps; Google gives away Android for free. If it can't put google search and ads on it, it won't be able to make money to keep funding Android. Banning Google Search from Android will cut its funding,…

Actually, Android would probably thrive if it was unprofitable. It'd end up in the hands of the open source community, instead of a greedy corporation controlling it with secret contracts.

The open source community is terrible at UX, Android is the first usable mobile OS based on linux with a good UX and I'm typing this from my Ubuntu laptop. Second, Android is already available as open source and there are a few open source distro, they are not thriving. Finally, we're all greedy so let's not be judgmental here :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#86

Post by wnevets »

scholia wrote: post #76
wnevets wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but Amazon is expressly forbidden from using the Android name source?

While the documentation itself is available to you under the Apache 2.0 license, note that proprietary trademarks and brand features are not included in that license. Google's trademarks and other brand features (including the Android stylized typeface logo) are not included in the license. https://source.android.com/license.html Android is a proprietary trademark wholly owned by Google. See also: Leverage over manuf…

maybe I'm dumb but I'm missing the part where Android is a proprietary trademark.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#87

Post by millstone »

tdkl wrote: post #64
ricw wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cas…

The issue is not what customers can do, it is what OEMs can do. OEMs cannot disable all that on Android and use other services and apps.

> The MS situation was similar in case that no-one used Windows just to use Internet Explorer

Microsoft did a lot of shady stuff. One example is the "per processor" licensing that said, if you ship Windows on one computer, you have to pay Microsoft a royalty for all computers you sell, even the ones that don't run Windows. That's obviously very anti-competitive.

Google seems to be doing something roughly analogous with its requirement that if you ship a Google service, you can't also ship a different, separate product with your own changes. They are trying to use their leverage to prevent competition.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#88

Post by blisterpeanuts »

From the article: Complainant FairSearch said Google was hindering the development of versions that might lead to new operating systems able to compete with Android, despite launching it as an open source project.

Is this the basis of the charges? That Google, by requiring the bundling of its own (free) apps and search engine, is preventing some obscure company from potentially developing a potentially competitive OS?

EU seems to regard Google's insistence on a uniform OS with certain basic services common to every device that calls itself Android as "harmful to the consumer". Even though more forking of Android would lead to more fragmentation, which most of us would agree is bad for the consumer.

I fail to see what crime Google has committed, other than to run afoul of a bunch of bureaucrats who have nothing better to do than regulate, tax, and sue private companies for being too successful, at the behest of tiny competitors who are unable or unwilling to succeed through innovation.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#89

Post by tacone »

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?…

Existing competitors (Bing, Yandex and so on) jumping in.

Massive lawsuits as Google actually sells services that would stop working, or that other vendors depend on.

Retaliation from the EU on alledged past violations.

Loss of revenue around 30-40% (just a guess) from losing EU customers (500M people market of first world countries) == lawsuits from its own US shareholders.

A wave of investments into EU newly found search market from all over the world.

Unsustainable political pressure from the US establishment to go back to EU ("we need that data and you're handing it to China or even worst, national states of Europe)

Tremendous loss of soft power and influence of the US on the old continent.

Financial default of tens of thousands of EU businesses, subsequent EU bailout, subsequent new protectionist measures over Internet businesses-

No more stupid comments on Youtube.

Who's that guy with a beard asking for money? It's Larry Page.

Websites all over EU begin to have a links section again.

Android gets banned, Nokia resurrects, with a big advertising campaign praising the long battery life and low radiation.

People cannot reach facebook anymore. They cannot look it up on Google and don't know what a domain name is. So they get on the road to ask other people how to reach facebook again. Then they become friend with them. And mate. Twenty years later Europe has now 10 competing search engines, the population had tripled as the result of mating and the average age has halved. They have far more less money than before, and they blame the greeks for that.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#90

Post by wstrange »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #83
patrickaljord wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps; Google gives away Android for free. If it can't put google search and ads on it, it won't be able to make money to keep funding Android. Banning Google Search from Android will cut its funding,…

Actually, Android would probably thrive if it was unprofitable. It'd end up in the hands of the open source community, instead of a greedy corporation controlling it with secret contracts.

I think you are underestimating the amount of work that goes into producing a high quality mobile O/S.

Someone has to fund that effort.

Post reply on HN