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

European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 975 posts

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#171

Post by cmsj »

repolfx wrote: post #117
claudius wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

You can use Android and make a phone that searches Bing and uses your own app store. Look at how Amazon did it. Most phone makers don't because customers prefer the Google services, but that's not Google's fault. They have provided OEMs with options - options they didn't need to give anyone, apparently, given that non-licensable operating systems like iOS aren't being whacked the same way. The most Google can do is g…

I understand that you can look at this in a way that makes it seem like Apple's tight control over iOS is equivalent to Google's tight control over Android, but there are some key differences:

a) Android has market share dominances (likely around 75% in Europe in 2018)

b) iOS is not made available for other companies to use

You could make arguments that iOS behaves unfairly to third party developers and end users, and there are some decent arguments to be made there, but none of them are relevant to antitrust law because a) means there is no market dominance to abuse with, and b) means there are no competitors to be abused.

---

You said "Most phone makers don't [skip Google services] because customers prefer the Google services, but that's not Google's fault". I think this gets to the heart of the disconnect between your stated position, and the legal reality here (IANAL though).

If Google's services are supreme because of user choice, then Google should require no legal arm-twisting to push those services onto devices.

Instead, what has happened is that Google has over-reached with its Android services contracts (one example - if you want to use Google services on one Android phone, you can't make a second Android phone that uses your own services), and that is what the EU is tackling here.

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#172

Post by bbeonx »

repolfx wrote: post #151
blub wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, that is a big problem. If company A has launched an official Android device, and company B goes to A and asks them to build a totally unrelated Android-based (but not Android proper) device for them, A is not allowed to do that by Google.

But why would company B go to company A and ask them to make a phone "for them"? It's not hard to become a phone maker these days, judging by the sheer number of Android OEMs that are out there (hundreds, I believe). If there was huge untapped demand for Android sans Google then a new company would appear, they'd download the Android code, they'd go to Shenzen and do a deal with a white label manufacturer, and they'd…

You're missing the forest for the trees. The example was illustrative.

In general, when you see an example that explains a complex issue you should assume that it is significantly simplified and therefore will not be realistic.

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#173

Post by cmsj »

repolfx wrote: post #94
rusk wrote: post #84

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?

ARM does not have a monopoly on mobile CPUs.

ARM do not sell any CPUs. the CPUs in mobile phones come from Qualcomm, Samsung, Apple, etc.

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#174

Post by repolfx »

bendiksolheim wrote: post #137
theBobBob wrote: post #103

Very slightly off topic but I actually think how Android handles default apps is the best of both worlds. It comes with very very good default Google Apps that work well together but it is very easy to switch out whatever you want for an alternative. How iOS handles it is the opposite. For their default apps they either straight out not allow competitors, severely limit what their competitors or (if I remember correc…

Do you have a source for this? I can’t remember Apple disallowing an app because Apple itself provides a similar app. I checked the default apps quickly on my phone, and can find several competitors for all of them. If you are talking about the "apps" Messages.app or Phone.app then I guess you might be right if we define "not providing a public API" the same as "disallowing on the App Store".

The policy no longer applies but for a long time, from the start of the app store, you weren't allowed to make apps that "duplicated the functionality" of the built in apps.

Notably Google made their own maps app and Apple banned it:

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-screws-google-over-lati...

But it also applied to iTunes competitors:

https://www.engadget.com/2008/09/12/app-disqualified-from-ap...

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#175

Post by bendiksolheim »

rhodysurf wrote: post #167
bendiksolheim wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for this? I can’t remember Apple disallowing an app because Apple itself provides a similar app. I checked the default apps quickly on my phone, and can find several competitors for all of them. If you are talking about the "apps" Messages.app or Phone.app then I guess you might be right if we define "not providing a public API" the same as "disallowing on the App Store".

You can’t choose what happens is the default on an iPhone. If I want to use Gmail to open mailto links I cannot. If I want to use chrome to open web links by default, I cannot. On Android you can pick whatever apps you want as the default.

I might have misunderstood what theBobBob meant with "default apps" completely, but that was not how I understood it at all. As far as I understand, he talks about disallowing apps on the App Store, so this would be a completely different point (to which I agree, setting a different browser would be nice).

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#176

Post by bbeonx »

Fnoord wrote: post #139
naturalgradient wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that antitrust laws like these are very selectively enforced. Selection and prosecution of these cases is hence inherently political as these are non-standardized arguments or verdicts.

> The problem is that antitrust laws like these are very selectively enforced. Selection and prosecution of these cases is hence inherently political as these are non-standardized arguments or verdicts. Following that logic, the same applies to law in general. Should we therefore abolish law?

This is, of course, the only logical conclusion

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#177

Post by piotrkubisa »

tiatia123 wrote: post #135
vivan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my country, iOS are more than 50% of the market. I haven't been able to find any EU-wide numbers though, which are the important ones in this case.

What country is this?

Probably UK, because iOS marketshare in UK is very close to 50% (52% Android, 46% iOS [1]). For curious, in some countries there is much more Apple iPhone users than Android users, like in Liechtenstein (58% [2]) or Monaco (64% [3]).

[1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-king...

[2]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/liechtenste...

[3]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/monaco

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#178

Post by blub »

repolfx wrote: post #151
blub wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, that is a big problem. If company A has launched an official Android device, and company B goes to A and asks them to build a totally unrelated Android-based (but not Android proper) device for them, A is not allowed to do that by Google.

But why would company B go to company A and ask them to make a phone "for them"? It's not hard to become a phone maker these days, judging by the sheer number of Android OEMs that are out there (hundreds, I believe). If there was huge untapped demand for Android sans Google then a new company would appear, they'd download the Android code, they'd go to Shenzen and do a deal with a white label manufacturer, and they'd…

First of all, Android is not only used on phones, but also for other types of embedded devices.

It's very normal that a company B would want to go to company A, if A already have a lot of expertise in Android. For instance a POS manufacturer might want to collaborate with Sony or Samsung on an embedded device which uses Android internally (without the GApps & stuff), but Sony and Samsung are forbidden from dealing with B.

Even Amazon would be happy to outsource some Android development to e.g. Samsung but they can't.

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#179

Post by mrpopo »

cncrnd wrote: post #134
PaulKeeble wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a consistent theme of American companies breaking European law and getting fined for it going back decades. The EU has a different legal system and you don't just get fined it happens after a long process of attempting to correct behaviour and legal proceedings. The arrogance of Americans to believe their legal system applies everywhere and that any attempts to apply a different one constitutes an attempt to…

Show me the evidence that Google was warned about this practice and refused to stop for a long time. I have a really hard time believing that they wouldn't take action in response to warnings if they knew that 40% of yearly profit was at stake. How the hell can the EU entitle itself to 40% of the profit of a company that provides a massive value add to the world? Email, search, maps, video, cloud, office apps and so…

> Show me the evidence that Google was warned about this practice and refused to stop for a long time.

In the article : "Google, which can appeal any decision, has rejected the EU’s case since the bloc issued formal charges over two years ago."

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#180

Post by [deleted] »

oblio wrote: post #165
cncrnd wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me the evidence that Google was warned about this practice and refused to stop for a long time. I have a really hard time believing that they wouldn't take action in response to warnings if they knew that 40% of yearly profit was at stake. How the hell can the EU entitle itself to 40% of the profit of a company that provides a massive value add to the world? Email, search, maps, video, cloud, office apps and so…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission ...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN