Live data from Hacker News

Google’s Internal Response to Imminent E.U. Charges

recode.net

61–70 of 101 posts

Re: Google’s Internal Response to Imminent E.U. Charges

#61
post #9

It ought to have been transparently obvious to Google execs from when Google became utterly dominant in the web search space that the risk of anti-trust violations was very high and if they wanted to avoid being censured they needed to consistently take the high road & avoid using that dominance to force entry into other fields at the expense of competitors. It has always looked to me that Google was consistently ste…

Compare Android with iOS. Android is open-source but if you want to ship any Google apps, the company making these apps makes you sign an agreement that forces you to ship a certain set of their apps. iOS is closed source, and you just plain can't use it on your hardware at all. How is Android worse?

Re: Google’s Internal Response to Imminent E.U. Charges

#62
post #44
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet when they don't, people decry (accurately!) the crappiness of non-"Google Edition" phones. For years now, the only Android devices truly competitive with iPhones have been the various Nexus/Google Play Edition/etc. devices - ones where Google has taken a heavy hand and enforced a more integrated (one might say "Apple-y") experience. Indeed, early on in Android's life, Google was much more hands-off with the O…

I agreed with you until this past year. If you play with a Nexus 5 or 6, and then you handle a Galaxy S6/Note4, LG3 or HTC M8/9, the user experience of all the of the non-Nexus devices is actually quite good and the OEMs are now allowing users to either disable or remove OEM apps & skins or skin elements they don't want. Frankly, the UX of stock Android is pretty crappy in several areas, and a lot of third party ROMs…

I disagree - as a longtime Verizon Wireless customer & former Android user (~~6 users), I constantly have seen crapware pushed down on Android phones. Phones like the Nexus series are not available on Verizon, and I happen to be on a legacy family plan ($40/month/line, unlimited data), so the only option for (relatively) crapware-free phones is the iPhone.

Samsung phones have been degrading in quality as well - screens have become more fragile, Samsung has focused on copying Apple in many ways, and probably most damning, the market has responded negatively to these more recent changes.

Give me a more spartan device like the Nexus 5 over that crap any day. Google had it right, but unfortunately has been blocked from bringing that experience over wholesale.

Re: Google’s Internal Response to Imminent E.U. Charges

#63
post #61
post #9

It ought to have been transparently obvious to Google execs from when Google became utterly dominant in the web search space that the risk of anti-trust violations was very high and if they wanted to avoid being censured they needed to consistently take the high road & avoid using that dominance to force entry into other fields at the expense of competitors. It has always looked to me that Google was consistently ste…

Compare Android with iOS. Android is open-source but if you want to ship any Google apps, the company making these apps makes you sign an agreement that forces you to ship a certain set of their apps. iOS is closed source, and you just plain can't use it on your hardware at all. How is Android worse?

The part where they have control over nearly every major OEM in the industry? Rather than being a niche OS for rich people.

Re: Google’s Internal Response to Imminent E.U. Charges

#64
post #7

Those graphs are so sad. It's all American companies competing among themselves: Twitter, Bing, DuckDuckGo... Even on our home turf, even with natural advantage (not so much in search but definitely in shopping), local competition is at the bottom, far behind Amazon and Ebay. And this doesn't seem to worry anyone here. We continue to tack on more regulation, tax rules detrimental to small businesses in their complexi…

Agree. The european problem: non-entreprenurial culture resulting in startup-prohibiting red tape. Two factors where the US beats Europe. Now combine that advantage the Americans have with the economics of scale of Software: It eats the world. Part of that cake: Pretty much any non-downtown store in Europe.

In some places red tape is a big issue, but I don't think it's the whole story. Starting a small business in Denmark nowadays is extremely streamlined: you can do the entire registration process for the Danish equivalent of an LLC online, and your business is registered within a day or so. It's so easy that it's become common for people to start a company even for small-scale side-business stuff. It's also fairly easy to hire and fire people (one prong of the "flexicurity" policy [1]).

I think a big problem has been the economics of scale you mention, because Europe has not really functioned as a common market. One part is language. This is changing a bit (at least here), and most Danish tech startups now make their products English-first, or even English-only, which greatly increases the odds of international adoption. Some is more cultural, though; we don't read French or Italian or German media, and nobody else reads Danish media, so things that get a "buzz" in one country travel fairly slowly cross-border, while American media spreads quickly. Probably a lot more factors of this sort.

One issue of incentives, though, is that it can still be in many cases an individually rational choice to target a more "provincial" market. If you're a Danish startup and identify a Danish-specific underserved market, you have less potential for growth, but may have higher probability of at least modest success, due to much less competition. So even if it's better for Europe as a whole for startups to target a broad, international market, it might be rational for individual startup founders to target smaller, country-specific markets. American startup founders to a large extent lack this choice, because there are not many tech market niches which are, say, Tennessee-specific.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexicurity

Re: Google’s Internal Response to Imminent E.U. Charges

#65
post #61
post #9

It ought to have been transparently obvious to Google execs from when Google became utterly dominant in the web search space that the risk of anti-trust violations was very high and if they wanted to avoid being censured they needed to consistently take the high road & avoid using that dominance to force entry into other fields at the expense of competitors. It has always looked to me that Google was consistently ste…

Compare Android with iOS. Android is open-source but if you want to ship any Google apps, the company making these apps makes you sign an agreement that forces you to ship a certain set of their apps. iOS is closed source, and you just plain can't use it on your hardware at all. How is Android worse?

That's a straw-man argument. He didn't say Android was worse than iOS. He said Google was abusing its dominant position to expand into new markets.

Re: Google’s Internal Response to Imminent E.U. Charges

#66

Is it just me or does that memo read like it was meant to be leaked. To the point that it was not at all intended for internal.

There is no such thing as an internal memo anymore. Especially on matters relevant to the public in general. It's a outdated practice of reporters to call it "leaked" but these days it's just to draw some attention. It was probably sent by their legal team themselves to send a message to the EU commission.

Well, no such thing as an internal all-hands memo. Sending something to "everyone at Google" is basically the same as sending it in public.

Re: Google’s Internal Response to Imminent E.U. Charges

#67
post #61
post #9

It ought to have been transparently obvious to Google execs from when Google became utterly dominant in the web search space that the risk of anti-trust violations was very high and if they wanted to avoid being censured they needed to consistently take the high road & avoid using that dominance to force entry into other fields at the expense of competitors. It has always looked to me that Google was consistently ste…

Compare Android with iOS. Android is open-source but if you want to ship any Google apps, the company making these apps makes you sign an agreement that forces you to ship a certain set of their apps. iOS is closed source, and you just plain can't use it on your hardware at all. How is Android worse?

[deleted]

Re: Google’s Internal Response to Imminent E.U. Charges

#68
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is, to me, the big one. The OHA is a huge agreement across an entire market segment not to compete with Google on a ton of products and services. There's no way Google gets out of an investigation with that practice intact.

I disagree, and a large reason of that is the open source nature of Android coupled with the fact that Google services don't cost end users anything in most cases. Also, Google's goal in this is to commoditize an adjacent market (mobile hardware) - which is as good for consumers as it is for Google. There was an argument for antitrust when Google was making hardware under Motorola, and my hunch is that Google diveste…

that doesnt make sense. There is a midway between forcing google services and no google services allowed, which is optional google services. SO if samsung can become dominant vendor by creating their own services the others can still go with google. This is a win for consumers who now have no choice but to go with google services.

Re: Google’s Internal Response to Imminent E.U. Charges

#69
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is, to me, the big one. The OHA is a huge agreement across an entire market segment not to compete with Google on a ton of products and services. There's no way Google gets out of an investigation with that practice intact.

I disagree, and a large reason of that is the open source nature of Android coupled with the fact that Google services don't cost end users anything in most cases. Also, Google's goal in this is to commoditize an adjacent market (mobile hardware) - which is as good for consumers as it is for Google. There was an argument for antitrust when Google was making hardware under Motorola, and my hunch is that Google diveste…

But it's not a competitive handset market. Google has gotten all of them agreed not to compete with Google on OS, apps, and services, which they've all fallen in line with, and barely if at all compete with each other. (You'll notice they all do anti-Apple marketing, but no other Android OEM has ever done an ad against Samsung, for instance.)

Re: Google’s Internal Response to Imminent E.U. Charges

#70

>Mobile is changing everything — with the explosion of apps taking people directly to the information they want. Today 7 out of every 8 minutes on mobile devices is spent within apps. How is that any different from people using websites directly? I don't see any change here, except that now 1 out of 8 minutes is apparently spent away from content? >Apps that compete directly with Google such as [...] are easily avail…

Yup. Google on Search: "Mobile is changing everything... please ignore the fact that we control the mobile industry too."
Post reply on HN