241–250 of 975 posts
History is repeating itself. Only difference is that Google search and Chrome browser is not as bad as MSN and IE in former times. Why Google did not looked on how MS handled that issue when you become the market leader?
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?
Google monopoly has very little to do with Chrome bundling and a lot with hardware being kept tight closed to kill any competition: the day we have OSS drivers is the day we can have other OSes (which have been already written) fully working; that will allow also software to be fully usable, creating more competition Google will have to respond to, hopefully with more openness and quality.
Before someone replies that drivers have nothing to do with browser bundling, think about how could Google force you to install anything or use any of their services if your underlying OS and surrounding environment didn't depend on anything from them because it wasn't even Android. Example: https://www.gnome.org/gnome-3/
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on...
They will always have cash to pay, even if the fines are higher and higher. They kind of expect for this in their long term strategic planning.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry if it was unclear. The first issue is Google pushing the search engine on mobile devices. For context they also push Google search to iOS devices (Apple gets huge amount of money for that), the same way as they pay firefox to have Google as their default search engine. The issue though, is that for android phones, it's not a "let's make a deal, we will pay you to have Google Search" attitude. You can't make an…
Which is a kind of silly decision on Google's part, because they have far and away the superior product and also the superior brand. Even if the option was given at setup, nearly everyone choosing to buy an Andriod phone would select google as the default search engine... (I guess you could say that didn't see this coming, but the parallels with MSFT and IE are pretty hard to not see...) The fine is going to hurt a l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better source: > The European Commission has accused Google of abusing its Android market dominance by bundling its search engine and Chrome apps into the operating system. Google has also allegedly blocked phone makers from creating devices that run forked versions of Android. https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-e... > How is it any different Apple doesn’t have a dominent search engine to pu…
That first claim is clearly wrong though. Firstly, Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe and their devices can be bought everywhere. Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google, notably the Amazon phones and tablets. They weren't that popular with consumers but that's not Google's fault: it just means consumers highly value the additional services Google provides.
The EU commission doesn't think so. Their press release* says that 80% of smart mobile devices in Europe, run on Android.
IMHO, antitrust fines/penalties should change from amount of money to some other type of penalty, like temporary market exclusion/block or something, otherwise companies like Google and others can simply use its cash (that's was also made due to the unfair advantage), pay the fine and move on to the next market dominance. They will always have cash to pay, even if the fines are higher and higher. They kind of expect…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the European Commission is also pretty proactive. Isn't it a bit late though?
Better late than never, I guess? The question I meant to answer wasn't about timing but about whether the fine is a result of lobbying.
Not for all the companies and FLOSS projects that have been wiped - or not even started - due to the Google / apple duopoly.