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

European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 975 posts

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#481

Post by jpetso »

neil_s wrote: post #421
mrweasel wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic is that you're not allowed to use your position in one marked to gain influence in another. Google knows that most manufacturer needs their devices to ship with the Play Store, because that's where the apps are and smartphone without apps are useless. But they use the Play Store as leverage, forcing manufactures to also ship Chrome, rather than Opera, Firefox or their own browser and that's the bit that is…

But Apple does pre-install iTunes/Apple Music, and make money when users use the default music app rather than downloading alternatives. You gotta pay for the OS somehow, but people aren't willing to pay for OSes. So instead, Apple makes money through the bundled hardware (to use iOS, you must buy an iPhone) and Google through the bundled software (if you want to use some Google apps like the Play Store, you must als…

"But I can't make this work unless I squash the competition by abusing my monopoly" is not a good argument for allowing it to happen, even if it were true here. The alternative is not to have no operating system, but to have a healthy market of other, possibly smaller, likely more operating systems instead.

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#482

Post by TheArcane »

jplayer01 wrote: post #471

ITT Americans don't care about companies (especially American ones) that abuse their positions as monopolies.

It's scary how all top comments are essentially pointing out how unfair it is for Google.

This is the tech version of people starting a $100M GoFundMe for Kylie Jenner to reach a net worth of $1B.

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#483

Post by jhasse »

JimmaDaRustla wrote: post #448
swebs wrote: post #295

>In particular, 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"). Sounds a lot how Microsoft abused licensing agreements with OEMs to discourage them from selling PCs not bundled with Windows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Win…

Does it not sound hypocritical to sue a corporation for pre-installing software (Microsoft installing IE on Windows) and also suing another corporation for not allowing software to be pre-installed? I also wonder how they come up with the multi-billion dollar values? How does that massive amount of money actually help repair whatever "economical damage" that was inflicted by not having some sort of app pre-installed…

> How does that massive amount of money actually help repair whatever "economical damage" that was inflicted by not having some sort of app pre-installed on a device?

By creating an incentive for Google (and other corporations) not to do it again.

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#484

Post by Daishiman »

JimmaDaRustla wrote: post #448
swebs wrote: post #295

>In particular, 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"). Sounds a lot how Microsoft abused licensing agreements with OEMs to discourage them from selling PCs not bundled with Windows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Win…

Does it not sound hypocritical to sue a corporation for pre-installing software (Microsoft installing IE on Windows) and also suing another corporation for not allowing software to be pre-installed? I also wonder how they come up with the multi-billion dollar values? How does that massive amount of money actually help repair whatever "economical damage" that was inflicted by not having some sort of app pre-installed…

This is a complete non-sequitur.

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#485

Post by skratlo »

wongarsu wrote: post #429
endorphone wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that not clearly breaching d? They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android experience" (Google experience, whatever -- the thing that most consumers think of when they consider Android). They manifestly have a profound connection with each other. And let's be clear here lest there be any confusion -- zero customers want a vendor to do anything different, and the only reason some vendors w…

>They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android experience" The thing they were fined for was >[Google] has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store); How is the Play Store related to the Google Seach app or to Chrome? One is an app store, one is a seach bar and one is a browser. They have…

> I prefer rooted CyanogenMod / LineageOS over stock Android

Well then, that's your choice, and with that you admit to belong to some 0.0001% of Android users who are willing to open up their phones to all kinds of security exploits, and reduce its value to some laughable percentile, as is known, with CyanogenMod / LineageOS most of the good part go to hell, camera goes to hell, performance goes, ... and you get what? Glowing aura of open source user

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#486

Post by wongarsu »

zaroth wrote: post #455
wongarsu wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android experience" The thing they were fined for was >[Google] has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store); How is the Play Store related to the Google Seach app or to Chrome? One is an app store, one is a seach bar and one is a browser. They have…

> How is the Play Store related to the Google Seach app or to Chrome? “Related to” does not mean that they are the literally same thing. They are clearly related as a suite of applications which form the core experience of what is called “Android”. The law doesn’t say that if it is technically possible to unbundle a set of options from a product offering to be sold al la carte that companies must do that. These are a…

> Mixing and matching, for the vast majority of users, is neither practical or expected, and absolutely negatively impacts the brand.

Microsoft should be delighted then that they can force Internet Explorer on everyone again.

> They are clearly related as a suite of applications which form the core experience of what is called “Android”.

That argument doesn't hold for Chrome. The core experience of Android is the AOSP browser (aka Android Browser). Later Google started to use their monopoly to force the inclusion of Chrome alongside Android Browser, followed by the removal of Android Browser in Android 4.4.

And even now, the only reason Chrome is part of the "core android experience" is because Google pushes hard to make it that way. There are plenty of other good mobile browsers.

>These are all essential components of one product — a mobile OS

But Google doesn't licence the OS. They donated the OS to Open Source, and use their licencing agreement for the App store to control unrelated parts of the OS experience

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#487

Post by DenisM »

JimmaDaRustla wrote: post #448
swebs wrote: post #295

>In particular, 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"). Sounds a lot how Microsoft abused licensing agreements with OEMs to discourage them from selling PCs not bundled with Windows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Win…

Does it not sound hypocritical to sue a corporation for pre-installing software (Microsoft installing IE on Windows) and also suing another corporation for not allowing software to be pre-installed? I also wonder how they come up with the multi-billion dollar values? How does that massive amount of money actually help repair whatever "economical damage" that was inflicted by not having some sort of app pre-installed…

The question is whether manufacturers had a choice, and the problem is that they did not because monopoly.

Massive fines discourage monopolistic behavior, if nothing else.

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#488

Post by the_watcher »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #437
Dayshine wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And if we just go around clubbing everything coarsely, why does my BMW have a BMW entertainment system Because BMW don't have market dominance in either the car industry or the entertainment system industry. If they used dominance in one to affect the other, they would be in breach of that legislation. >This is absolutely not at all clear cut. It is incredibly nuanced So how do you explain Google's non-compliance wh…

So it's only against the law once the company becomes big enough? If, for example, BMW _did_ become an extremely successful car manufacturer to the point where they were capturing >80% of the market, would they suddenly no longer be allowed to bundle their own entertainment system with their cars?

I don't love this ruling (and I probably disagree with it, but I haven't read the whole decision or the laws in question yet, and as an American, am not 100% clear on EU precedent so I'm somewhat withholding judgment), but yes, in most cases, anti-monopoly laws only apply when a company becomes large enough. In the US, it's actually explicit - monopolies can actually only exist if they are using their status to impact pricing/consumer choice, which necessitates size.

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#489

Post by delecti »

brainwad wrote: post #462
delecti wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is imposing terms on third party manufacturers. What third parties are selling devices with iOS?

Apple is simply imposing such onerous terms that no OEMs can sell iOS. But because (as a result of this anti-competetive behaviour) their market share in the OS market is low, it doesn't break the law.

Not selling something isn't "such onerous terms". They're allowed to not sell their software for others to use.

Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

#490

Post by dlp211 »

dalore wrote: post #91
ekianjo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android does not have a monopoly either. You can buy an iPhone.

This is talking about from the perspective of phone manufacturer. As a phone manufacturer you can't license iOS so that's out. You can really only license Android and if you do you have to also install Google Apps, Chrome, and make Google the default search engine on your phone.

You are not required to license Android to use Android. AOSP and other versions forked from AOSP do exist.

There are.other mobile OSes available as well. I'm sure Microsoft will gladly let you use their OS for the right price, KaiOS, Ubuntu phone OS could be resurrected, you could role your own, I'm sure Symbian is for sale somewhere, how about Meego.

Post reply on HN