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

EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 121 posts

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#41

Post by jboydyhacker »

zanny wrote: post #13

The best possible outcome I could see from something like this is the opening up of the Play Store ecosystem to third party Android forks. The contention is over Google licensing Android branding and its proprietary apps running on top of the AOSP and requiring them all be shipped together. The problem isn't the OS itself, it is the Play Store hegemony and the fact you cannot reasonably ship an Android phone without…

Google /Android already has an issue with App Quality relative to ios Apps- that would make it tougher to produce a quality product.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#42

Post by known »

Sounds rational.

"European Union antitrust regulators said that by requiring mobile phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser, the U.S. company was denying consumers a wider choice of mobile apps and stifling innovation."

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#43

Post by Bjartr »

kyrra wrote: post #32
NiKMic wrote: post #18

I'm not sure if I am understanding it well. Does the EU have an issue with Google Chrome coming pre-installed with Android? In that case, shouldn't Microsoft face the same penalties since IE/Edge comes pre-installed on the Windows OS? I believe that these pre-installed apps can't be uninstalled (because it might happen that you end up with no browsers on your phone), but would making the app uninstallable solve this…

Details are in the EU's press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm The key points: > requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps; > preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing op…

It's the second and third points that I take issue (with Google) on. The first seems a reasonable way to try to ensure that if manufacturers want to benefit from the ecosystem Google has built they have to provide users with the experience Google intended. Less than that can reflect poorly on Google if the manufacturer provided ecosystem integration is lackluster or even intentionally restricted.

The other two points are problematic because they apply restrictions to business decisions the manufacturer can deliver independent of how those offerings do or do not rely on the ecosystem Google developed and are therefore Google leveraging its business position to reduce consumer choice in its favor.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#44

Post by timthorn »

jbob2000 wrote: post #4

Totally implausible scenario, but what would happen if Google were to say "to hell with this" and just completely pull out of the EU? Like full-stop, nothing Google touching the EU. Would there be riots? Would governments try to force Google back? Like, are they so essential to digital life that a complete withdrawal would cause some amount of chaos? And if that's the case, isn't an antitrust suit a bit disingenuous?…

You could look to China for an example of what might happen - not quite the same dynamic, but Google did pull out there some time ago.

http://www.radiofreemobile.com/google-flavour-of-china/

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#45

Post by kuschku »

zanny wrote: post #13

The best possible outcome I could see from something like this is the opening up of the Play Store ecosystem to third party Android forks. The contention is over Google licensing Android branding and its proprietary apps running on top of the AOSP and requiring them all be shipped together. The problem isn't the OS itself, it is the Play Store hegemony and the fact you cannot reasonably ship an Android phone without…

> but you can always pull a Cyanogenmod and ship a phone without those apps installed.

That’s exactly what you can’t. Google only allows you to ship Google Apps on one of your devices if you ship it on all.

Which is the most important part the EC complains about.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#46

Post by joekrill »

unlinker wrote: post #15
bingobob wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they don't allow any other browser engines on iOS

Apple's market share in Europe is so laughable they literally can do whatever they want, but not allowing other browser engines on iOS is certainly not grounds for an antitrust lawsuit.

How is it not? The issue in the case of Google is the requirement for Chrome. So how is that any different here? (Other than the fact that you can actually install another browser on Android if you want, where you don't even have the option on an iPhone).

> EU antitrust regulators said that by requiring mobile phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser to get access to other Google apps, the U.S. company was harming consumers by stifling competition.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#48

Post by mintplant »

amelius wrote: post #33
dublinben wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft already faced an antitrust suit about this issue several years ago. It resulted in the mandatory browser choice ballot when first starting a new Windows system.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu

Can't every app be considered a "browser" nowadays? I mean, every app contacts the internet, and displays results based on data from the internet. I'm not sure if it is fair to draw the line at web browsers that render HTML.

That seems unnecessarily reductive.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#49

Post by bad_user »

zanny wrote: post #13

The best possible outcome I could see from something like this is the opening up of the Play Store ecosystem to third party Android forks. The contention is over Google licensing Android branding and its proprietary apps running on top of the AOSP and requiring them all be shipped together. The problem isn't the OS itself, it is the Play Store hegemony and the fact you cannot reasonably ship an Android phone without…

> But the store is a proprietary and effectively closed app ecosystem completely under Google's control, thus the issue of monopoly exploitation.

Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using that monopoly to gain an advantage in newer markets is. And the problem with this argument is that you're getting this backwards: when Android 1.0 shipped, Google already had a foothold with Search, Gmail and Maps. The whole purpose of Android was for Google to have a mobile platform to not get locked out of the mobile market. They aren't making money from licensing it and Android wouldn't exist if they couldn't use it for distribution of their apps and services. And the same conditions applied then, as in you want the Android Marketplace (now Google Play) then you have to also ship Google's apps, with HTC Dream (the very first Android phone) shipping with Search, Gmail, Talk, Maps, YouTube, Calendar and Contacts. Did they miss anything important in version 1.0?

> The only part of the Android ecosystem that in any way really violates user freedoms

The "violations" on user freedoms that you're thinking of are subjective issues, not lawful ones. Android is the only mobile OS that allows for Firefox and for third-party app stores without jailbreaking it. Which means that users have the freedom to install and use any alternative they want, a freedom that's not available for the other mainstream mobile operating systems.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#50

Post by yincrash »

NiKMic wrote: post #18

I'm not sure if I am understanding it well. Does the EU have an issue with Google Chrome coming pre-installed with Android? In that case, shouldn't Microsoft face the same penalties since IE/Edge comes pre-installed on the Windows OS? I believe that these pre-installed apps can't be uninstalled (because it might happen that you end up with no browsers on your phone), but would making the app uninstallable solve this…

Even worse is that iOS browsers cannot implement their own rendering system, so they are all locked to Safari's version of WebKit. At least browsers in Android can truly be different than both the in-system chromium based webview and Chrome itself.
Post reply on HN