Live data from Hacker News

European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

europa.eu

181–190 of 975 posts

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

#181
post #64
post #43

Can Google just close shop in the EU and ignore the fine? Nothing they provide really mandates they have a physical presence.

They could but they'd lose access to the economy with the largest spending power per capita in the world. Inevitably another player would spring up to feed this void and could then use that as a platform to start eating their lunch elsewhere.

They probably wouldn't.

Do you imagine the EU would force every ISP to block Google web search, Gmail, etc? Beyond being technically difficult I do not believe the EU currently has the power to create a Great Firewall of Europe like that.

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

#182
post #114
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

I am not claiming that the law was unjustly carried out. Google must have had the chance to plead their case. The question is rather, "Should this law exist?" The answer is no. A law which allows this magnitude of a fine for the behavior described is ridiculous. These are not laws sent down by god. Some elected or not elected officials sat down and decided on some stuff - and they can make mistakes. Have you seen the…

The magnitude of the fine should ideally be such that it captures all of the illegal gains, plus a risk premium.

(Risk of not getting caught)

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

#183
post #61

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.

The law may be the law but you still need someone to complain to the authorities.

If I went out into the street and 'keyed' someone's status symbol car then I would not be in trouble until someone decided to do something about the crime.

The owner might not be pleased and, pressured by the insurance company, might get the police to go through CCTV and finally find me caught in the act.

Alternatively, a neighbour or passer by might just call the cops on me whilst I 'brazenly commit the deed'.

Either way, unless there is a report of wrong-doing then I would be getting away with it, not having to be fined etc. The police don't just sit there idly looking through the rule book looking what they can nick me for, someone would have to bring matters to their attention.

And that is the problem with this EU ruling. Nobody I know has bought a phone, decided to write to their MP (or MEP) and complained about not having Bing! as their default search engine. The EU don't accept complaints from little people like that anyway.

So what has gone on here is that some group of lobbyists have sought out some money from the Microsofts of this world, invariably to setup some fake pressure group, to bring on this legal action. With previous history, e.g. bundling in Windows, the modus operandi was the same, albeit with Netscape being the whinging ninnys.

Whwn the story finally hits the press the parasitical legal firm, the fake consumer group and who fronted the cash to pay for the action get forgotten, instead debate concerns whether the E.U. is a load of rubbish, being as silly as when they banned bent bananas and had wine lakes or whether Google have been truly evil.

In The Emperors New Clothes the people that sold the expensive invisible thread leave the story so in the final act there is just the stupidity of the crowd and the stupidity of the Emperor, story facilitated by the boy. Similarly here, the people that have wreaked this carnage have left the story a long time ago.

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

#184

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…

> I know that anti-trust laws are probably not applicable as Apple does have a dominant position based on total market share

It's an interesting question though, because it depends on which 'market' you're talking about. This is a vexed question in antitrust law [1]. There is some pending litigation in the United States as to whether Apple illegally monopolized the market for iPhone apps [2], but it's been brought by app purchasers rather than the regulator, and Apple has taken the case to the Supreme Court to argue that the purchasers don't have standing to sue.

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

[2]: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/apple-v-pepper/

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

#186
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could but they'd lose access to the economy with the largest spending power per capita in the world. Inevitably another player would spring up to feed this void and could then use that as a platform to start eating their lunch elsewhere.

They probably wouldn't. Do you imagine the EU would force every ISP to block Google web search, Gmail, etc? Beyond being technically difficult I do not believe the EU currently has the power to create a Great Firewall of Europe like that.

Yeah the discussion here is about smartphones ...

They "could" block all import of Android based smart phones if they wished (based on noncompliance with trade rules of course).

In all liklihood they'd slap a levy on these imports which would either raise their price making alternatives more interesting to the market. Android devices are dominant in the cost sensitive segment.

Alternatively the manufacturers could push this back on to google or it might provide additional commercial impetus to develop a viable alternative.

That's the beauty of one of the largest economies in the world singing in harmony from the same hymn-sheet. When the collective foot is stamped it echoes around the world.

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

#187
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, an…

Fantastically lucid and cogent summary. I regret that I have but one upvote to give.

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

#188
post #2

Can anyone concisely explain what this fine is for, and also why the same wouldn't apply to Apple for iOS? It seems to be a rehash of the issue that Microsoft faced when it only gave you Internet Explorer on install. But iOS comes with only Safari on install, and forces you to use Apple's various apps - how is this any different?

I don't get it either with regards to the Microsoft case. You need a browser to start with but you can install any browser available. Android doesn't block Bing, or any other search engine. So what's the problem?

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

#189
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Apple hasn't been fined in the same way. So apparently if Google had kept Android proprietary, and made their own hardware, they'd be totally OK, even though there'd only be two phone makers left in the world instead of dozens like there is now? I'm sorry but this move is garbage. I am British and I'm so glad the UK is leaving this horrible, success hating farce of a union. Google paid billions to develop Android…

>if Google had kept Android proprietary, and made their own hardware, they'd be totally OK Yes, why is that surprising ? They would also not get the benefit of OEMs shipping their bundle of services across the globe. >gave it away for free under the Apache license specifically to encourage competition It has nothing to do with increasing competition. It's anything but. That's one of the reasons for the fine. The non…

No, you're completely wrong. Have you even ever used Android devices? Samsung's flavour of Android is quite different to HTCs or LGs. Google doesn't prevent people creating competing forks of Android, that's the entire point of Android's design.

What their agreements require is that the forks be compatible with base Android, that is, apps should run the same on every variant of Android. It's designed to ensure app compatibility and avoid the mistakes of the past, like with J2ME where apps had to be debugged on every single phone because they were all riddled with bugs and incompatibilities.

But outside of app compatibility issues vendors can and do make big changes, everything from the appearance to the UI to the set of bundled apps - Samsung for instance replaces the browser, replaces the calendar, replaces the contacts app, replaces the home screen, replaces nearly everything. And Samsung is a Google licensee. So clearly, your understanding of what Google is doing here is not accurate.

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

#190
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU's demand was that Ireland collect that tax from Apple. 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.

You think it was blindingly obvious to Apple that they would have had to pay this tax eventually? Seems to me and everyone else it was an attempt at a stroke. You're alleging that Apple were a passive actor. You saw that thing in the ICIJ Jersey papers leak where Apple went round the world actively seeking jurisdictions that would twist their tax rules to suit them? https://www.irishtimes.com/business/apple-s-cash-mo…

No, I'm not alleging Apple was passive here, at all

I'm saying that when you get a deal this good —however you ended up there— you should not be surprised when it turns out that it was illegal.

Of course Apple shopped around. But if somebody offered to sell you $20 bills for half a cent each, would you suspect something dodgy? That's the scale of the issue here.

Post reply on HN