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

441–450 of 458 posts

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

#441

Post by twblalock »

elsonrodriguez wrote: post #212
Normille wrote: post #70

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.

If the EU standardizes on battery packs, Ryobi needs go get a free pass or extension of some sort. Ryobi have kept the same battery format for 25 years, whereas their competitors have changed battery standards 2 or 3 times during that timeframe.

Ryobi and Milwaukee are owned by the same company, and Ryobi products have not changed because they are the low-end product made by that company. The parent company uses the newer battery formats in their more expensive brands.

Ryobi should not be praised for failure to innovate. They did not do this out of a desire to preserve compatibility, but rather out of cheapness.

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

#443

Post by Semaphor »

bmicraft wrote: post #385
Semaphor wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are a lot of German niche companies in that list. Like seriously "one specific job" niches ;)

Metabo (the one I know for their powertools, though Fischer is famous for their dowels and Edding for their markers) is known for drills as well as gardening power tools. I think this is more a non-consumer area (though Metabo certainly dabbles in consumer devices)

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

#444

Post by riffraff »

jmyeet wrote: post #388
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…

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…

there was a brief period of time when mobile OSs were shitty but plenty.

Android made a two-player competition better, but it did so at the expenses of other competing OSs which could not gains foothold.

It's practically the story of BeOS vs Windows.

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

#445

Post by riffraff »

Apocryphon wrote: post #246
slaw wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

WebOS!

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

#446

Post by linmob »

Apocryphon wrote: post #246
slaw wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ubuntu Touch is still around, see [0]. That said, with continued funding by Canonical, they like would have progressed differently (likely more).

Firefox OS and webOS are still around under different names, which are Capyloon [1] and LuneOS respectively [2].

[0]: https://ubuntu-touch.io/

[1]: https://capyloon.org/

[2]: https://webos-ports.org/wiki/Main_Page

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

#447

Post by Apocryphon »

linmob wrote: post #446
Apocryphon wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ubuntu Touch is still around, see [0]. That said, with continued funding by Canonical, they like would have progressed differently (likely more). Firefox OS and webOS are still around under different names, which are Capyloon [1] and LuneOS respectively [2]. [0]: https://ubuntu-touch.io/ [1]: https://capyloon.org/ [2]: https://webos-ports.org/wiki/Main_Page

Interesting, I had thought KaiOS was the last remnant of FFOS.

I wonder which of these projects is most active at this time.

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

#448

Post by josefx »

dekhn wrote: post #424
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.

what's funny is that most people think of that trial as being about Microsoft "putting IE in the operating system". Which is hilarious, because where else is your core HTTP fetching DLL, your core HTML parsing DLL, etc, going to go otherwise? A Chromebook is basically an operating system running Chrome and more or less nothing else, vindicating Microsoft's technical decision.

> Which is hilarious, because where else is your core HTTP fetching DLL, your core HTML parsing DLL, etc, going to go otherwise?

Microsoft insisted that the OS needed the internet explorer executable, not only the rendering engine components. You couldn't even run windows update without it opening IE - in order to load a native ActiveX component that then performed the work. They where desperate to make everything depend on IE without a plan of how to make good use of it, which shouldn't be surprising, back then any complex use of IE would have blue screened the entire system.

> vindicating Microsoft's technical decision.

Imagine a ChromeOS based on IE5 and tell me why I shouldn't break down in hysterical laughter just thinking about it.

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

#449

Post by dekhn »

josefx wrote: post #448
dekhn wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's funny is that most people think of that trial as being about Microsoft "putting IE in the operating system". Which is hilarious, because where else is your core HTTP fetching DLL, your core HTML parsing DLL, etc, going to go otherwise? A Chromebook is basically an operating system running Chrome and more or less nothing else, vindicating Microsoft's technical decision.

> Which is hilarious, because where else is your core HTTP fetching DLL, your core HTML parsing DLL, etc, going to go otherwise? Microsoft insisted that the OS needed the internet explorer executable, not only the rendering engine components. You couldn't even run windows update without it opening IE - in order to load a native ActiveX component that then performed the work. They where desperate to make everything de…

It makes perfect sense to me that if MSFT made IE a necessary component to upgrade the operating system, then insisting the OS needs that executable is an absolutely (technically) correct thing to say.

I said it vindicating their decision- not that IE was a good foundation to build a presentation layer on.

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

#450

Post by aembleton »

nottorp wrote: post #403
aembleton wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the package management differs between distros

As someone who makes a living partially by doing custom distros for arm custom boards (and apps on top of them)... no. There is no difference between linux distros. Same for Android flavors for that matter.

If there are no differences between linux distros, why does anyone need a custom distro?
Post reply on HN