European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by chki » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 10:56 AM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #124

sveme wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EU Commission as judge, jury and executioner The executive fines someone (like you are fined for violating parking regulations), then you can appeal that fine in court, in this case most likely the ECJ. Would you argue that it's wrong to address a coporation's wrongdoings? EU companies are fined regularly as well, might not create such an upheaval in the US media, though.

If the government believes people have broken the law, in a democracy that means civil servants have to launch a criminal case and win a prosecution. The EU is not structured like that, and thus doesn't have to win any prosecution. Margrethe Vestager just issue a proclamation with a number she and the Commission picked out of the air, and the deed is done.

That's a very narrow (and in my opinion even wrong) understanding of what constitutes a democracy. Prosecuting companies via criminal lawsuits might be the American way but that does not mean every democracy has to have those same rules. If an administration fines a company and there is the possibility to appeal to a court that is also a democratic process. My homecountry Germany uses this process (companies are never sued in a criminal lawsuit) and I don't see a reason why that would be undemocratic.

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

#192

Post by onion2k » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:00 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #93

littlecranky67 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A monopoly is not defined by the possiblity that there are other products available for purchase on the market, but rather how many products have been purchased and are in use. Using your reasoning, Microsoft could never have had a monopoly on Windows because you always could have bought a Mac.

A monopoly is exactly that. Mono means one. Thats the root of the word. What you are describing is a dominant position, which is completely different since its a relative definition.

You're mistaking the dictionary definition for the legal definition.

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

#193

Post by cncrnd » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:00 AM UTC

mrpopo wrote: post #179

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…

> 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."

This is not evidence, charges were issued years ago based on past behavior. Until there is a decision made, why should Google change it's behavior?

My view on this situation is that regulators should decide if such bundling is allowed on a case by case basis. Then, the ruling is 'We have made a decision. You get X fine if you do not comply.' Rather than, 'We prosecutors think you are not complying' followed by 'Yep you were not complying, give us billions'.

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

#194

Post by Radle » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:01 AM UTC

garmaine wrote: post #157

Radle wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can hide profit on the paper, by investing it. So it is impossible to fine under consideration of profits. The only way to do is to use revenue, but judges should still consider the business profit margin.

That’s not the only way. Independent government auditors could make their own profits assessment and work off that. This is exactly what is done in other jurisdictions and other industries.

Let's say you have one profit bringing business unit like google ads. (Let's call it main unit) but you also have internal startups in your company (side units). But you only have one operations department, only one HR department etc. How do you account the expenses of these departments in relation to main business and the side units?

You can't. If people are not forced don't write down exactly whether they spent their time on working for the main unit or the side units units, you can't later account it correctly. Unfortunately it's not even clear for the company what happens sometimes. You might for example hire an employee, but place him in a different business unit than originally planned. Or the employee later on changes business units.

The other problem with this is even if you require such a strict accounting setup, you can't tell whether employees and/or departments are accounting their efforts correctly, it's just incredible difficult to enforce the rule; to make sure they don't lie. Even if you think hey you can do it, you have to rigorously enforce this for all companies in your juridiction, because as soon as you stop looking, they will stop caring.

So the problem is you can't tell the profits before "internal investments" as long as you can't pin down operational costs.

You'll see that the only thing that you can accurately account for is the main business units revenue, but you can't give a precise number on operational income. (Which is revenue - product costs - operational costs).

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

#195

Post by a_imho » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:02 AM UTC

Google is a serial offender at this point and we are not even into GDPR territory. It seems these fines might actually be too low if they can't keep Google's hands off the cookie jar.

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

#196

Post by rusk » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:03 AM UTC

oliwarner wrote: post #190

rusk wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm getting where you're coming from now.

This is just a drop in the ocean for the total amount of wealth that is protected with these schemes. In the $20 for ¢0.5 picture this probably amounts to ¢50. They're still making off with the other $19.49. Though arbitration would probably round that up.

An acceptable loss.

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

#197

Post by repolfx » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:03 AM UTC

rusk wrote: post #186

repolfx wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pu…

The discussion was about "losing access". To do that the EU would have to impose not just tariffs but complete import bans on dozens or maybe hundreds of OEMs, many of which aren't American. It'd mean starting a phone-oriented trade war with most of the world's big economies, and handing the entire European market to Apple.

But Android is much more popular than Apple phones in some EU countries (not all) mostly because it's a lot cheaper. So either a lot of Europeans would have to fork out a lot more than they wanted to for a phone, or decide they couldn't afford a smartphone at all and go back to feature phones.

This is why you admit the EU would never do this.

When the collective foot is stamped it echoes around the world.

Very Orwellian imagery you have there. It wouldn't really echo around the world. Google wouldn't give a crap. Android was created mostly to stop Apple from gaining a monopoly and holding them over a barrel with respect to services (go read up on the origins of the project). It has wildly succeeded in that mission already. If the EU selectively taxes its own people whenever they buy an Android smartphone, this would not only hurt the EU's own popularity significantly (people love their cheap smartphones), but it wouldn't harm Google much or at all because Apple un-clenched a lot since Jobs died and iOS is a more open platform than it used to be, albeit, still nowhere near as open as Android. The rest of the world is sufficient to keep Apple in check anyway.

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

#198

Post by akie » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:03 AM UTC

cncrnd wrote: post #114

Radle wrote: 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…

> A law which allows this magnitude of a fine for the behavior described is ridiculous.

It's a percentage of their yearly revenue (or income, not sure). If a company breaks the law and you want it to stop doing that and change their behaviour, you need to be able to hand them a fine that makes them stop and think. Would you prefer if they were handed a $100 fine instead? What would be an appropriate fine for you? I think a moderately high percentage-based fine is the only way you can do this.

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

#199

Post by rusk » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:07 AM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #197

rusk wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pu…

The discussion was about "losing access". To do that the EU would have to impose not just tariffs but complete import bans on dozens or maybe hundreds of OEMs, many of which aren't American. It'd mean starting a phone-oriented trade war with most of the world's big economies, and handing the entire European market to Apple. But Android is much more popular than Apple phones in some EU countries (not all) mostly becau…

Losing access is a matter of degrees. It doesn't make sense for the EU to cut off access of their market to google products and services completely.

> Google wouldn't give a crap

LOL

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

#200

Post by xg15 » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:07 AM UTC

pdw wrote: post #67

vivan wrote: 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?

From Wikipedia: In their Statement of Objections, the European Commission accused Google of the breach of EU antitrust rules in three ways: - by requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps; - by preventing manufacturers from selling sma…

My understanding is that the "certain Google proprietary apps" most importantly contain the Play store. Yes, in theory you could install FDroid - however if you, as a manufacturer, don't want to break the "install our app" flows of basically every website, you need the Play store - and therefore you also need to install Chrome, default Google Search and never sell a phone with Lineage OS installed ever again.

Not sure if the same licensing also applies to Google Play Services - if yes, this might make it difficult to even run the apps without getting the license, no matter which store is used.