Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by g_p » Thu, May 13, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #125

wwtrv wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need register with a real name and credit card and pay 100$ to be able to publish anything on the app store. Irregardless of how effective the review process is even if you manage to sneak any app with malware past it Apple will still be able to remotely remove it from every user’s device and ban your account. This alone make the Appstore inherently safer than any system which would allow side loading. As for cod…

>You need register with a real name and credit card and pay 100$ to be able to publish anything on the app store. This was done on Windows too, you were not forced but any business would sign their application, otherwise they user would get a scary warning that the developer is not know. >As for code, they run relatively extensive automatic tests to detect whether private (banned/undocumented) APIs are used, I don’t…

In the EU there is a (little known) law that does as you suggest -

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...

This regulation specifically looks at platform-to-business relationships, and requires actual disclosure of reasons, notice periods, etc.

What we need to see are cases using this law (as it's pretty clear from article 4 what business' rights are), so it becomes too costly to trample over businesses in an unaccountable way. Once the cost of human intervention and support is lower than that of their legal bills and penalties, human support and intervention will return. Platforms are getting away without humans in the loop as a result of the lack of cost impact to them of a mistake. Once it hits their bottom line and gets their counsel in a pickle, it will start to change rapidly to preserve their bank balance.

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

#162

Post by HALtheWise » Thu, May 13, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

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 really sad thing about this case is that there is _no way_ that Google made anything like $100M from the charging station finder in Google Maps in Italy. That functionality reeks to me of something made by a small group of Googlers because they legitimately care about promoting electric cars and making life easier for their owners, not because Google particularly cares if they dominate the electric vehicle charging station finding market. Now that the functionality has cost them $100M and however much effort it takes to make a regulator-approved SDK for Android Auto, I'm worried that the lawyers at the company will just shut down that feature and others like it, which would be a net loss for users.

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

#163

Post by jeroenhd » Thu, May 13, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #87

evidencebased wrote: post #79

This is a huge reason why China imposes certain rules on foreign corps if they wanted to operate there. The media and politicians makes it all about politics, but it is an entirely reasonable way to deal with foreign mega corps. Local competitors would not survive against something like Google without government protection. 100 mil fine every once in a while is just the cost of doing business for them. How many simil…

>Local competitors would not survive against something like Google without government protection So you want them to be protected. In other words, protectionism?

Not the parent, but I do, yes.

Every country does protectionism in some form, it's the only way to prevent monopolies. Even the United States, where politics are led more by the free market than by citizens, throws around embargoes and regulation when important parts of the economy is threatened.

One recent example is the American attempts at sabotaging the new gas line from Russia to the EU. Companies get threatened with embargoes, insurances get cancelled, all to maintain the European dependence on the US energy market.

Protectionism protects not only the local economy, but also protects countries from foreign influence. All the major world powers want their own version of important economic and digital infrastructure to protect themselves against the other powers trying to sway public opinion. Google and YouTube are major influences in the world and without an effective ban they will continue to do so. People want convenience above all else, their own long-term interests be damned. Ignoring the threats of a globalised industry benefits no country.

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

#164

Post by darksaints » Thu, May 13, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #72

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…

What are the rules for Android Auto? Distracted driving is a big problem, but my experience is that people have superstitious ideas about what is safe and what is dangerous in areas like that. You can certainly do experiments, and the conclusion you seem to reach is that you're in a lot safer with a car that has physical buttons for the audio, heat, etc. (Had "luxury" carmakers been on the ball five years or so they…

Totally. I'm maybe a week or two away from buying a Model 3, but the thing I keep coming back to is the whole "everything is controlled by a touchscreen" crap. Even when physical controls are not designed perfectly, you can still get used to them to the point where they are muscle memory and no longer a distraction. No matter how awesome they are, touch screens will never not be a distraction.

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

#165

Post by klmadfejno » Thu, May 13, 2021, 4:00 PM UTC

HALtheWise wrote: post #162

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 really sad thing about this case is that there is _no way_ that Google made anything like $100M from the charging station finder in Google Maps in Italy. That functionality reeks to me of something made by a small group of Googlers because they legitimately care about promoting electric cars and making life easier for their owners, not because Google particularly cares if they dominate the electric vehicle chargi…

That's only sad if all they did was make a product and not share it with others. They also rejected a competitor access to their monopoly on the service. It's supposed to sting. Otherwise they would just do this shit all the time.

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

#166

Post by kavalg » Thu, May 13, 2021, 4:06 PM UTC

CountDrewku wrote: post #159

Why is the EU the only one doing anything about monopolies? I'm tired of useless US politicians letting these massive corporations run our entire country. Break them up already.

Because it looks corporations are the government. I really like the idea of democracy, but it looks like politics and democracy are two very different things. Actually I would love to see some usable digital democracy project coming out. I imagine things like:

- always having the possibility for a direct voting for e.g. a new law/regulation

- a (deep) hierarchy of delegates/representatives on a per topic basis

- immediate retraction of trust/support from a representative

- maybe some micro monetary support for representatives

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

#167

Post by zepto » Thu, May 13, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

swiley wrote: post #156

zepto wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not unusual that apps change their behavior after the review Which leads to the account being banned. > and this sometimes comes from binary dylibs that the developer didn't write. Which are detected through analysis if they are common spyware. >The whole thing is a scam. Clearly not.

>> It's not unusual that apps change their behavior after the review >Which leads to the account being banned. Only if it gets noticed. >> and this sometimes comes from binary dylibs that the developer didn't write. >Which are detected through analysis if they are common spyware. Facebook got away with it for many years. >>The whole thing is a scam. >Clearly not. If it weren't then they would let people choose to use…

> Only if it gets noticed.

True, but they are getting better at noticing.

>> and this sometimes comes from binary dylibs that the developer didn't write. >Which are detected through analysis if they are common spyware.

> Facebook got away with it for many years.

You know about that because they were stopped. And since then Apple has tightened the rules and stepped up detection.

>>The whole thing is a scam. >Clearly not. > If it weren't then they would let people choose to use the App Store.

No, because that would enable social engineering attacks once again.

> It only exists to protect Apple's services from competition.

This is straight up bullshit. You keep saying it, but it’s false at face value.

Millions of scams have been stopped.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/05/app-store-stopped-ove...

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

#168

Post by fouric » Thu, May 13, 2021, 4:09 PM UTC

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…

> Whether it's 100m or 2bn doesn't really matter.

...yet, it will absolutely matter if it's $20B - Google's 2020 operating income was $41B.

You're making the claim that since Google wasn't fined enough, fines don't work - which is absurd.

Try making the fines a reasonably large percentage of gross revenue from the previous year - say, 10%. 10% of Google's 2020 gross revenue ($182B) is $18B, which is almost half of their operating income. That will have an effect.

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

#169

Post by jeffbee » Thu, May 13, 2021, 4:10 PM UTC

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…

It can't be that simple because there is working ChargePoint integration with Android Auto. If they were just blocking 3rd party apps that wouldn't exist.

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

#170

Post by passivate » Thu, May 13, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

JI00912 wrote: post #124

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. Careful though. A monopoly may abuse its position, which is bad, but a big company may be big because they are good and people use them, which is good.

>but a big company may be big because they are good and people use them, which is good.

I agree in part, but I disagree that 'good' can be a state that applies universally. Personally, I think of it as a tag that you can apply to individual actions on a case-by-case basis. Also, is there any company that has gotten big solely because 'they are good and people use them'?