I'm kind of bummed that FOSS licencing isn't one of the teeth here. The anticompetitive aspects here are based in overly restrictive distributor contracts. The fact that android and chrome are so full of FOSS, yet Google does what it does...
Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B
381–390 of 458 posts
Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK the idea isn't that you can't ship devices running other operating systems but that you can't ship devices running non-compliant forks of Android, which I do agree is nigh unto the same thing--as Android is open source and that's a decision Google already made--but I think is worth noting explicitly as others sometimes see it as different (both because it doesn't prevent a greenfield alternative, and as Google…
> I mean, they've already gone back hard on the level of openness they started with From what I understand, AOSP is not dead, but it's definitely far behind the latest versions of Android. The default apps are not updated, the UI toolkit is behind, most of the new services used by everything in Android are the proprietary bits. It's basically Darwin at this point, yeah, open source, but in no way shape or form if you…
(By "gone back hard" I don't mean "has returned to" but "did a 180 away from". Maybe you are just expanding, but it sort of sounded like you were disagreeing, when in fact I am fully on board. I remember when they started and their stated goal had been to separate all of their build and hosting infrastructure from Google so everyone was working with and seeing live commits to collaborate.)
Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example, not require that Chrome be preinstalled as the default browser on Android devices, and not require that a bundle of Google apps be preinstalled if any of them is preinstalled.
there is no way to delete safari from iphones
I would think the same and can only assume that apple is not as much of a monopoly as google/android in the EU. I think Vestager &co also wanted to have a solid case (as evidenced in the appeal losses right now) and the apple one was more difficult to establish? I don't know.
Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can fork AOSP in arbitrary ways and have a pretty great OS. Most companies don't do this because they don't have any particular ideas about how to do Android's core differently - UI is one of the places where you can actually innovate and users will notice, so that's where the effort goes. But that's not Google's fault. They can't make Samsung have brilliant ideas about how to rearchitect the OS core.
> But that's not Google's fault. They can't make Samsung have brilliant ideas about how to rearchitect the OS core. One of anticompetitive restrictions identified was: > ‘anti-fragmentation agreements’, under which the operating licences necessary for the pre-installation of the Google Search and Play Store apps could be obtained by mobile device manufacturers only if they undertook not to sell devices running versio…
But Google approves forks that are AOSP compatible as checked by an automated test suite. And if Samsung wanted to, they could stop selling phones with the Google apps and switch to their own AOSP fork. They've already laid much of the groundwork after all.
Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was pleased to see recently that a couple of different brands at my local DIY store had interoperable batteries. I bought a small lawnmower which now uses the same battery as a cordless drill from another brand. The brands that joined are listed on their marketing site[0]. Edit: One of the companies has a slightly less obnoxious website which also lists brands[1] [0] https://www.powerforall-alliance.com/en/#technol…
Oh cool, so there are two competing battery pack standards :D https://www.cordless-alliance-system.com
I've never even heard of a power tool from any of those companies
Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU publishes tons of written material, and basically all of it has to be translated. Costs for translating the proceedings are very likely less than 1% of total costs for translation.
> EU publishes tons of written material, and basically all of it has to be translated. But only legislative text needs to have translated versions officially recognized as equivalent. The rest can be produced and published in English, and member countries can translate them as required, if necessary. It's a huge expense that exists only to placate French linguistic nationalism.
Well, Imagine your government (the EU is not far off of being one) is now handling everything in spanish, even though your country speaks english and english is your official language. Lets be generous and there are only about 10% of people not speaking spanish. Is it really ok that there are official documents, meeting notes, publications, advertisements,web sites, videos etc in spanish and only the most important ones get translated to your language?
For companies this would completely fine. For a government this is not.
Apart from that, there is right now a huge source of text that is publicly available and already translated into the same X languages, with a huge quality to boost. People have teached ML translators with that text source. Ofc this is just a side effect but these translations have made other translations and communication in the EU a bit more simple just by being such a big reference.
Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was pleased to see recently that a couple of different brands at my local DIY store had interoperable batteries. I bought a small lawnmower which now uses the same battery as a cordless drill from another brand. The brands that joined are listed on their marketing site[0]. Edit: One of the companies has a slightly less obnoxious website which also lists brands[1] [0] https://www.powerforall-alliance.com/en/#technol…
Wow this is a great idea. I do have to say I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that none of the bigger brands in power tools look to be participating. The only name I recognize there is Bosch, I've never had any of their tools but my perception is that they are a mid-tier brand. It would be great to see players like DeWalt, Milwaukee, and Makita do something like this.
Bosch segments its own market into the "green" and "blue" parts, the latter being for professional use. They're very well-made and costly, on-par and competitive with the other brands you mentioned. But of course they are not in this Power4All alliance thing and are incompatible with the "green" consumer stuff.
Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B
#388A 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…
So I have no doubt Google threw their weight around in the Android space. It's known that they impose conditions for access to the Google suite of apps. But I have a thought that I have a hard time reconciling.
Imagine Google had gone the Apple route of vertically integrating handset production, distribution and sale in the same way Apple did. If they had, there would be no antitrust issue, just like there isn't with Apple.
That seems weird.
How is having third-party manufacturers (well, really it's just Samsung now) create more antitrust issues than the Apple model? That just doesn't seem right.
Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Requiring that someone cannot use Google branding on a phone with an ancient version of Android is legal. Requiring that someone cannot use Google branding on any device they manufacture or sell, if they also manufacture or sell devices without Google branding that use ancient versions of Android, is entirely illegal in the EU.
[deleted]
Re: Google loses EU appeal and is fined a record $4B
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
Windows Phone was always destined to fall. There is no scenario in which Windows Phone would not been beaten into irrelevance by Google and by Microsoft's own actions in undermining their underwhelming and unpopular mobile OS.
Well, this thread is in the parallel universe in which Google would have sold only its own Android devices. So no Android + LG, Sony, Samsung, Huawei, etc. If you look at Google's hardware's capabilities, Android would have flopped immediately. As bad as the org level issues were with Windows Phone, it would have still beaten Android-on-Google-hardware-only.
Microsoft actually charged a license fee for Windows Phone OS which is just one of many reasons OEM's abandoned the OS. Google also would have undercut their licensing fees to ensure their failure. Additionally, the absence of any Google apps would have also ensured a quick death for Windows Phone. Its failure was inevitable and justified for what they did to their customers and OEM's.