271–280 of 975 posts
Who cares lol - if this fine is a drop in the bucket compared to the gains they made. They should be fined as a percentage of their gains
The 2nd paragraph in the press release.
I also think that manufacturers have themselves to thank. AOSP used to be quite complete in the old days, but every time Google updates it, it takes ages for the device makers to update their devices (if they do it at all); that's why so much of what makes Android great right now relies on Play Services. It was a move that was welcomed by the consumers/tech journalists.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a consistent theme of American companies breaking European law and getting fined for it going back decades. The EU has a different legal system and you don't just get fined it happens after a long process of attempting to correct behaviour and legal proceedings. The arrogance of Americans to believe their legal system applies everywhere and that any attempts to apply a different one constitutes an attempt to…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There used to be a plethora of mobile platforms: * Symbian * Palm webOS * Mozilla (I think that was also called WebOS?) * Jola * Some blackberry thing based on QNX that "supported" Android apps * Tizan * Windows Phone * Ubuntu Phone Plus a bunch of independent / hobby(?) ones that never really took off, eg the Inferno port These days it feels like most people have given up trying to compete against Apple and Google.
Mozilla's effort was Firefox OS (or Boot To Gecko), now forked as KaiOS.
Interesting to note that a quick look on the Firefox OS Wikipedia article has highlighted a bunch of other mobile platforms I'd forgotten.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android does not have a monopoly either. You can buy an iPhone.
Microsoft never had a monopoly in operating systems ever in it's history either. You could install CP/M on IBM XTs and you could run OS/2 or Linux or a plethora of other UNIXes on later IBMs and clones instead of Windows. Doesn't mean they hadn't had market control due to it's market share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you please tell me how I can uninstall the default apps, or at least keep them from constantly updating themselves? That half a gig of unwanted apps that just keeps growing itself is pretty annoying.
Default apps are often built-in and can't be uninstalled. But you can disable them. See https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2521768 for details. If you do this then it's worth uninstalling any updates to the app first, to free-up some space.
With 'root' access, it's possible to remove them via a superuser app or adb - or it used to be the case.
I really like this point:
> [Google] has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
Woaah, if this is dropped, it might entice someone to produce Google-free Android Phones (e.g. with MicroG) WITHOUT sacrificing the "Google pre-installed" Android market. I would buy the Google-Facebook-Other_BS-free variant of your otherwise commercial high-to-mid-end, google-and-other-stuff-infested mobile phone!
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?
It is for having a dominant market position in mobile phones (90% global market share) and abusing the market position in mobile phone operating systems to favor their other products. Apple does not have a dominant market position and does not give away iOS for free. Making Android free is an anti-competitive practice because it inhibits the formation of a competitive market for mobile phone operating systems. Becaus…
Where is the problem with making Android free?