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

Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 458 posts

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#241

Post by pmyteh »

dahfizz wrote: post #239
stingraycharles wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Extract fines” makes it sound like the EU is the evil one here, rather than Google abusing its position.

The world is not a child's cartoon. It can be simultaneously true that Google is a scummy monopolist and the EU is not acting in good faith.

It's acting in good faith insofar as it does care about establishing transparent markets (and also protecting citizen privacy). It's fortunate (at least for itself) that these ambitions are entirely consistent with political expediency - which means they can pursue them without reserve.

If an EU company did similar it might not be hit so hard (which would be hypocritical). But that doesn't make this action (a fine for obviously anticompetitive action) in bad faith, so much as it would make the other (lack of fine) so.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#242

Post by slaw »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #236
guelo wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that if Google had not licensed Android and only manufactured its own devices, like Apple does, it could restrict consumer options much more harshly without EU fines and restrictions.

If Google chose that path, other manufacturers would still need an OS to put on their phones - and it's likely Windows Phone would be the contender. So maybe we'd live in a world with 3 mobile OS's and more competition. The point is, the alternative scenario involves more actors making different choices.

We would live in a world with 2 mobile OS's iOS and Windows Phone. Android would land in Google Graveyard.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#243

Post by Auracle »

scarface74 wrote: post #230
Hamuko wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So still when the Android user with the cheap power only USB C cord moves over to the hypothetical iPhone 15 with USB C, they will still have to throw away their USB C cable that potentially doesn’t support high speed data or video over USB C. Except that it's still a perfectly fine cable for charging, which is what most people do with their cables?

As long as you don’t care about data transfers of the very large video and photos that modern phones can create or connecting to a larger screen. If you want to “avoid ewaste” why not “mandate” more than the least common denominator? If iPhone users were satisfied with the least common denominator, they would be buying cheap Android phones.

The amount of people that transfer videos/photos off of their phone to a computer by any means is absolutely minuscule.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#244

Post by Apocryphon »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #236
guelo wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that if Google had not licensed Android and only manufactured its own devices, like Apple does, it could restrict consumer options much more harshly without EU fines and restrictions.

If Google chose that path, other manufacturers would still need an OS to put on their phones - and it's likely Windows Phone would be the contender. So maybe we'd live in a world with 3 mobile OS's and more competition. The point is, the alternative scenario involves more actors making different choices.

Maybe Nokia would have stuck around unmerged and there would have been hope for the very polished MeeGo build seen on the Nokia N9.

Not to mention BlackBerry and webOS still being contenders.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#245

Post by scarface74 »

Auracle wrote: post #243
scarface74 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you don’t care about data transfers of the very large video and photos that modern phones can create or connecting to a larger screen. If you want to “avoid ewaste” why not “mandate” more than the least common denominator? If iPhone users were satisfied with the least common denominator, they would be buying cheap Android phones.

The amount of people that transfer videos/photos off of their phone to a computer by any means is absolutely minuscule.

So you think the people shooting 4K video and taking RAW pictures are posting them to Instagram?

The lowest common denominator is the same reason that Bluetooth outside of the Apple ecosystem is such a shit show.

Android has supported its own proprietary video over micro USB for ages before USB C became more ubiquitous. What are the chances that Android manufactures won’t cheap out and not ship with cables that can support video over USB?

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#246

Post by Apocryphon »

slaw wrote: post #242
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google chose that path, other manufacturers would still need an OS to put on their phones - and it's likely Windows Phone would be the contender. So maybe we'd live in a world with 3 mobile OS's and more competition. The point is, the alternative scenario involves more actors making different choices.

We would live in a world with 2 mobile OS's iOS and Windows Phone. Android would land in Google Graveyard.

Then maybe Firefox OS and Ubuntu Touch would still be around as FOSS mobile OS.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#247

Post by [deleted] »

nilsbunger wrote: post #196
gwerbret wrote: post #170

A summary of the original findings by the European Commission (1): "By decision of 18 July 2018, the Commission fined Google for having abused its dominant position by imposing anticompetitive contractual restrictions on manufacturers of mobile devices and on mobile network operators, in some cases since 1 January 2011. Three types of restriction were identified: 1. those contained in ‘distribution agreements’, requi…

#2 is the same thing Microsoft got busted for by US antitrust in the late 90s. Microsoft had required computer vendors to NOT sell computers with other OSes (eg Linux). At one point they insisted computer vendors pay for a Windows license on all computers they shipped, even ones shipped without Windows.

[deleted]

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#248

Post by tremon »

dahfizz wrote: post #239
stingraycharles wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Extract fines” makes it sound like the EU is the evil one here, rather than Google abusing its position.

The world is not a child's cartoon. It can be simultaneously true that Google is a scummy monopolist and the EU is not acting in good faith.

If you're accusing others of acting in bad faith you need to substantiate that. With a proper argument. Otherwise you're not acting in good faith yourself.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#249

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

Dalewyn wrote: post #228
nilsbunger wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#2 is the same thing Microsoft got busted for by US antitrust in the late 90s. Microsoft had required computer vendors to NOT sell computers with other OSes (eg Linux). At one point they insisted computer vendors pay for a Windows license on all computers they shipped, even ones shipped without Windows.

Is it? My reading of #2 suggests Google just didn't want phones with ancient or beta versions of Android in the market with Google branding. Fairly reasonable demand, if you ask me. #1 is right up the alley that busted Microsoft, though.

> versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google

That could include deprecated versions and any forks.

Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B

#250

Post by robertlagrant »

cyphar wrote: post #199
robertlagrant wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do believe it. But that's not relevant, because OP is talking about an additional power.

In that case the argument should be about whether or not it should be a criminal offense at all (meaning whether European CEOs should be jailed in the case of malicious actions against their users). The fact it would theoretically extend to people in the US (good luck extraditing them) is IMHO not really an important thing to consider.

Well, that was the example this thread was talking about. You could change the topic and make what we were talking about unimportant, but that seems a bit churlish to phrase it that way : - )
Post reply on HN