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

Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

repubblica.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 289 posts

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#51

Post by Siira »

dalbasal wrote: post #40
user-the-name wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a lot more than "theatre". The first line of defence is the sandboxing built into the OS. The second line is a lot of automated analysis of the binaries that are uploaded. The human review is the third line, but that is much less about security.

..and the last line of defense is removing a bad app to prevent further harm. Drivers licenses aren't only about competence. Sure, there's a test. But, there's also the ability to revoke a license.

So please explain why the licenses need to cost a fortune? Simple Bayesian thinking will tell you what the real motive is, and what is being used as the coverup motive.

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#52

Post by dalbasal »

oblio wrote: post #27
dalbasal wrote: post #26

The way antitrust is working in recent years is kind of ridiculous. Google in Europe is becoming a rich case study in antitrust meh. You find that adwords engages in a blatant "monopolistic abuse" in some specific sense. In the Adwords EU case for example, Google was both monopsonising (google search) and monopolising search advertising. But, the actual violations are specific, like exclusivity requirements and other…

> IMO, we need some way to declare a company "Big" and apply special rules to them. If those rules are onerous, that might create some organic pressure to split and/or help smaller incumbents compete. Past a point, they should be regulated like an utility.

IDK if it's "past a point," but in some cases maybe.

I'm torn on that though. EG, what would it actually mean if FB or twitter became "regulated like utilities?" Interoperability? Portability? IMO, these are pretty finicky problems for a regulator. I think it would likely look like the mandated personal data dumps we have today. Some clunky feature that few use, and don't change the structure of the market. Useful transparency, but not really game changing.

Regulated equal access? Court-like proceeding to confirm bans? I'm not feeling it. I suspect it will entrench monopolies further.

A Telecom or EnergyCo is fundamentally different from a FB or Google. Regulators needed to make sure everyone had access, because it's always more profitable to just exclude certain people/areas. Prices are an issue because infrastructure monopoly. Also because government/regulators typically fund a lot of the capex.

There is almost no cost, marginal or fixed, associated with instant messages, shares, likes, links, etc. If Facebook and Twitter folded tomorrow, we would still have plenty of all of these because they are not scarce. Maybe there's a case for cloud computing as a utility, but even here I'm hesitant.

Enough with analogies to 19th century monopolies. Platform monopolies should be regulated as platform monopolies, not utilities. New thinking.

In any case, google is the perfect target for actual trustbusting. Separate search from adwords and android. Ban default buying. Ban mergers.

The old challenge was (eg) trust busting steel without harming the actual production of steel. Today's problem has little to do with production. It does have a lot to do with share prices. Is there really an appetite for turning Alphabet from a $1.5trn company into a $150bn company?

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#53

Post by wccrawford »

Chris2048 wrote: post #49
simonh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to explain for non-native anglophones, I think what they meant was "gave out a rule", but in idiomatic English "ruled something out" means it has been eliminated as a possibility.

Yep, and to explain further; The first instance of "ruling" in a judicial sense probably derives from rule (i.e dictat/maxim). To "rule out" is to use a ruler to cross a line through something in a written list of items, thereby eliminating it from consideration.

But also in colloquial English, "rule out" means "eliminate by logic". Like, "use the rules to take it out of possibility".

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#54

Post by 3v1n0 »

hankchinaski wrote: post #42

allegedly, Google did not approve Enel X charging station finder app Juicepass on the Android Auto store due to security and standards concerns. I do not understand why Google did not provide a clear exhaustive explanation on the specifics but just a generic "We have strong standards for the publishing of apps on our Android Auto store". They are not even trying to justify or defend themselves because they don't need…

They also have to provide a SDK

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#55

Post by johschmitz »

StavrosK wrote: post #44
spoonjim wrote: post #41

Good for Italy -- they have no chance of creating a Google, so their best path to tech dollars is a regular cadence of these $100m fines (but not so often that Big Tech exits the Italian market).

> Good for Italy -- they have no chance of creating a Google, so their best path to tech dollars is a regular cadence of these $100m fines (but not so often that Big Tech exits the Italian market). Are you saying that it's not that Google was wrong here, but that the Italian government want to parasitize on Google?

How I understand it he is saying Google is willing to pay for "being wrong" or rather "behaving in certain ways". Now it is just kind of a fee and both sides are happy. Maybe not the perfect situation for the customers but between the two parties and with the current legal framework the deal makes sense. Doesn't it? Should we be surprised about any of the two parties optimizing their position within the given constraints? I think it is quite clear that if another outcome is desired the constraints need to be changed.

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#56

Post by genericacct »

icpmoles wrote: post #5

Quick summary: the biggest electricity provider in the country (ENEL) made an app (Juicepass) to find and manage their charging stations across the country. The Android Auto functionality of the app has been rejected by Google for non disclosed "security concerns while driving". The antitrust ruled out it was because Google wanted to sabotage competitor apps to the charging stations finder built-in in the Google Maps…

The fact that ENEL is owned by the employers of the ruling judges is just a coincidence.

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#57

Post by oblio »

gverrilla wrote: post #32
oblio wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does your comment mean, in less poetic form?

I'm sorry but I can't express myself in a "less poetic form", because this space is not suitable for in-depth conversation and also because I don't have enough domain over the language. There's a book I can recommend though: Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord, 1967.

Writing concise yet non cryptic messages is both an art and a skill.

Might be worth practicing.

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#58

Post by 1_player »

TZubiri wrote: post #14
varispeed wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Italy, the judgements are not a source of law, so this ruling does not mean that a similar situation would have the same outcome in the future.

I think some degree of jurisprudence is always present in any legal system. It's the natural law.

I don't think the word you're looking for is jurisprudence, which is defined as "legal theory" or "legal philosophy" as opposed to legal practice.

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#59

Post by codesternews »

threeseed wrote: post #30
oblio wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walled gardens are just security theater. The App Store revenue was $72bn in 2020, yet the review time for an app is a few hours. App reviewers barely have any qualifications, they're just "call center operators" running off a script.

a) Apple has invested heavily in automated review methods over the years. b) I don't know what qualifications you think an app reviewer needs. They are not looking through the code but simply playing with the app on a range of devices. c) It is only a few hours for updates. Initial app submissions often take days/weeks and are very thorough.

I agree with you, But you know there are different rules for each app.

Small developers don't get same access as big developers and their apps get klled for smallest reason just by having some obscure policy or change in policy.

Developers don't have same access as Apple google eg: Screen Time

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#60

Post by mikro2nd »

genericacct wrote: post #56
icpmoles wrote: post #5

Quick summary: the biggest electricity provider in the country (ENEL) made an app (Juicepass) to find and manage their charging stations across the country. The Android Auto functionality of the app has been rejected by Google for non disclosed "security concerns while driving". The antitrust ruled out it was because Google wanted to sabotage competitor apps to the charging stations finder built-in in the Google Maps…

The fact that ENEL is owned by the employers of the ruling judges is just a coincidence.

Are you suggesting that the Italian judiciary is incapable of acting independently and impartially?
Post reply on HN