251–260 of 458 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> pretty good track record when it comes to consumer rights Are you sure EU has "pretty good track record" with these fines of Google, FB, et al.? If anything, I'd say the EU puts a mild theatre every now and then, and gives the US giants a free pass otherwise.
I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons the EU exists is to fine US tech companies instead of trying to compete
Cool. The EU does have its [many!] faults. But they have a pretty good track record when it comes to consumer rights and consumer choice. Next up I'd like to see them do the same for the plethora of incompatible cordless power-tool systems out there as they did with insisting all mobile phones standardise on a USB connector.
I support the charging connector standardization, but not tool batteries. There are so many factors in play I don't see how standardization would offer enough benefit to offset innovation penalties. Even within a given brand/connector, there are variations on capabilities like size and duty cycle and power output. I have a bunch of Milwaukee cordless tools on the M18 platform, and the smaller tools (e.g. drills) can…
Right, but home users will. I have 5 Ryobi One+ batteries, so there's no way I'll buy a battery-operated tool from a different brand, even if the tool itself is better/cheaper than the equivalent Ryobi product.
> Android has created more choice for everyone, not less Did it? I can choose between an iOS phone and an Android phone. I may be able to choose from different manufacturers on the Android side, but on the software side there are just two options.
> I may be able to choose from different manufacturers on the Android side, but on the software side there are just two options. What do you mean by "just two options"? The AOSP ecosystem has a healthy range of ROMs to choose from on many devices. The process of installing alternative firmware may not be for everyone, but the choice is there, which is pretty much nonexistent for iOS devices.
Yet, still pocket change. It is commendable that EU does not allow miscreants to tie up fines in an endless legal maze.
What % of global revenue or profit do you think an appropriate fine is?
Probably any fine should accompany (but not depend on results from) criminal charges for a company officer.
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.
To be clear, I have not read the original agreements to confirm this is the case, it's just my interpretation of #2.
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.
And this is EU, which mostly does have them as top priority.
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.
I think that would have been acceptable - my reading of #2 is that if you sold phones with a fork of Android, even if that phone did not have Google branding, Google would not allow you to sell *any* phones with Google branding. That does seem very similar to the Microsoft example.
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.
Then the rule was overly broad, since it also prevented them from selling Android phones without Google branding. I think Amazon was involved in that lawsuit after it had issues finding a manufacturer that wasn't bound by that rule.
> This is Google's third EU antitrust fine. Previously, the search giant was fined in a shopping case and an online advertising case. Apparently, "three strikes and you're out" only applies to individuals, who with a repeat offense of this magnitude would have their lives destroyed by the justice system, and get locked away for a decade or more.
I don't think three-strikes laws exist anywhere other than in the US to be honest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the short run, yes. But on the long run, that would be more effective. Once the customers and workers have been burned once, they will be very hesitant to give their trust to the company again. Companies would then have to get their things in order quickly, and win back the trust. A very effective deterrent. Imagine Google being out of the EU market for 3 months. How many youtubers would try and publish their vide…
Google exiting the market for 3 months would have enormous economic impact, in a bad way. They're too integrated into the economy to "just" close them out of the economy for 3 months. The world could tolerate YouTube being gone for a while. What about Android though? Is the entire world supposed to replace their phone while Play Services are down, and Android isn't getting security updates? What about GCP? How many b…
so too big to fail. Like with banks, they should be allowed to do anything with impunity and we should use taxpayer money to bail them out when they fuck up?