101–110 of 975 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That first claim is clearly wrong though. No it isn't. But your attempt at refutation is. > Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe Apple has its segment. Android is pretty much everything else. It is "dominant" in the market. > Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google The complaint relates specifically to access to google play services.
But Android isn't a phone maker. It's a component that is usually customised. Now go look at who are making phones on this base: Samsung is the most popular but it doesn't have a monopoly. Is the EU going to fine ARM next for having a monopoly on mobile CPUs?
Maybe? Is there something about their business practices that shapes the market to their benefit? If so, and there are enough complaints then maybe not "next" but yeah.
I know that anti-trust laws are probably not applicable as Apple does have a dominant position based on total market share, but to me this practice seems far more anti-competitive. Banning competitors seems worse than fully allowing competitors but providing your own as default that can easily be changed.
This line in the article got to me, "The fine would top the EU’s €2.4 billion antitrust decision against Google just over a year ago." It looks like the EU has created a piggy bank with these regulations on hostage tech corporations. I wonder how much of the large fines is attributed to prosecutors or politicians trying to make a name for themselves. Anyone know how often these record fines hold up on appeal? Edit: W…
"Piggy bank", there is a full process duo law involved. It's not like people come up with "hey we need money, let's fine google". Why would you claim something like that without providing any evidence that this is actually the case?
The arrogance of Americans to believe their legal system applies everywhere and that any attempts to apply a different one constitutes an attempt to raid the piggy bank is kind of amazing. I wish it wasn't such a prevalent view but you see comments like the one you responded to every single time a fine is levied.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That first claim is clearly wrong though. No it isn't. But your attempt at refutation is. > Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe Apple has its segment. Android is pretty much everything else. It is "dominant" in the market. > Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google The complaint relates specifically to access to google play services.
But Android isn't a phone maker. It's a component that is usually customised. Now go look at who are making phones on this base: Samsung is the most popular but it doesn't have a monopoly. Is the EU going to fine ARM next for having a monopoly on mobile CPUs?
Have ARM used their dominant position in one market to reduce competition in a different market?
This one frustrated me to read, i think they should have gotten involved sooner and worked with google. Instead they slap a crazy high fee for something that is vague in violation. It does feel a bit like a vendetta here by the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a fine against Apple, it's a demand that Ireland corrects past behaviour that has been deemed state aid. While it's certainly Apple's prerogative to play EU states off against each other to get the best deal, it should have been blindingly obvious that what it was getting from Ireland would be, and should be reversed.
The demand was that Apple pay €13B in back taxes. > it should have been blindingly obvious and yet, it took a deep-dive investigation by the commission with a team of specialists to untangle it.
And blindingly obvious to Apple, the benefactor.
When somebody says, "Hey come and do your stuff here, we'll only charge you 0.005% corp tax!" you should expect that their wider financial governing body (who is losing out severely because of a deal like that) might have something to say about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That first claim is clearly wrong though. No it isn't. But your attempt at refutation is. > Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe Apple has its segment. Android is pretty much everything else. It is "dominant" in the market. > Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google The complaint relates specifically to access to google play services.
But Android isn't a phone maker. It's a component that is usually customised. Now go look at who are making phones on this base: Samsung is the most popular but it doesn't have a monopoly. Is the EU going to fine ARM next for having a monopoly on mobile CPUs?
Having a monopoly or being in a dominant position is not the problem. If ARM starts a pizza business and requires everyone who wants to buy mobile CPUs to also order pizzas exclusively from them, then this would be an equally-fineable abuse of a dominant market position and the EU would almost certainly step in.
As it stands, ARM doesn’t force others to buy pizzas exclusively from ARM PIZZA PLACE and hence doesn’t abuse its dominant market position in one market (mobile CPUs) to support its position in another market (pizzas).
Google, on the other hand, uses its dominant position in the "licensable mobile operating systems" market to support its position in the "internet search" and "browsers" market together with anticompetitive behaviour forcing its licensees to exclusively use the Google-approved version of Android.
This one frustrated me to read, i think they should have gotten involved sooner and worked with google. Instead they slap a crazy high fee for something that is vague in violation. It does feel a bit like a vendetta here by the EU.
In most (all?) other fields of law you are expected to abide by the rules as they are stated, or risk being punished by the legislative powers. That's not a vendetta, that's law as it is most commonly practiced. I don't see why EU should "work with google" to make them follow regulations (EDIT: beyond the threat of punishment).
Is this a serious fine, or just a slap on the fingers? Can Google just continue their practices after this?