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

491–500 of 975 posts

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

#491

Post by nkkollaw »

menegattig wrote: post #244

IMHO, antitrust fines/penalties should change from amount of money to some other type of penalty, like temporary market exclusion/block or something, otherwise companies like Google and others can simply use its cash (that's was also made due to the unfair advantage), pay the fine and move on to the next market dominance. They will always have cash to pay, even if the fines are higher and higher. They kind of expect…

Turning off Google in Europe even for 1 day would result in complete chaos.

A week would definitely put a noticeable dent in the economy.

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

#492

Post by jhasse »

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…

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

I'm using Android every day and never once opened Chrome (instead I'm using the Lightning browser) or used the Google app to search (I'm just searching directly in my browser). So IMHO that's definitely NOT the core experience of Android, while the Play Store is.

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

#493

Post by MBCook »

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 Apple pre-installs it on Apple’s phones. Apple can do whatever they want on Apple phones.

Google is forcing installations on Samsung phones, LG phones, etc through their contract.

It is entirely possible what Apple is doing would be illegal IF they licensed/sold the OS to other OEMs.

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

#494

Post by Dayshine »

brainwad wrote: post #468
mtgx wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "It's easy to replace an app" Also, I don't think all Google apps can be uninstalled. Either way, I've certainly seen apps from other OEM partners that can be removed. That should outright be illegal within the EU. All apps that aren't strictly necessary for the functioning of the case operating system should be uninstallable.

A browser has to be installed on Android so that embedded web views work properly. Similar to how IE has to be installed on Windows.

Yes, which is fine.

The ruling was because Google say it must be Chrome, and cannot be Firefox.

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

#495

Post by maym86 »

This is a case of breaking a law where there was clear precedent set by the Microsoft case. Google decided it could get away with it or the cost was worth it. I'm glad the EU stands up to monopolistic practices and doesn't capitulate like in the US. Without large companies suppressing competition who knows how many other choices and products we would have?

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

#496

Post by MBCook »

Xenos_Ender wrote: post #356
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…

Name an industry that doesn't use their position in one market to gain influence in another.

Nintendo

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

#497

Post by oblio »

therealmarv wrote: post #447
oblio wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because crime at that level pays and we're talking $$$. The fine is just a slap on the wrist in the overall scheme of things.

I somehow doubt it pays more than 5 billion dollars. I mean, even when I had the option I would use Google search and Google Chrome anyway and I think many other people too.

People use defaults. Look up UC Browser and the Samsung Browser. Especially their market share.

Regarding potential gains, Android has all but cemented its position as the smartphone OS. Microsoft did the same in 1995 with Windows in the desktop market and it has 90%+ marketshare there, 23 years later. It's very likely it will still dominate the desktop market in 2045.

Android will be at least a loss leader for Google for decades to come. And they made $10 billion in profit in 2017 alone (of course not all of it is driven by Android, but you get an impression of the scale).

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

#498

Post by wongarsu »

skratlo wrote: post #485
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…

> 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…

>with CyanogenMod / LineageOS most of the good part go to hell, camera goes to hell, performance goes

All that goes to hell because Google prevents almost all first party support for LinageOS (or any other forks), which is why Google gets fined now. In a theoretical world where Google didn't do the things they are fined for, LineageOS might work much better on a wider range of hardware and thus have much more mainstream appeal.

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

#499

Post by Veelox »

Personally I feel like the European Commission is going to far and trying to make an example of Google. I think there is a space for antitrust fines for practices but I was it was aimed at practices that are anti-competitive at any size and are only effective because of a dominate market position. With in mind I think only 1 of the 3 feels like that to me.

> [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);

I think this is an acceptable business practice. Saying "If you use one, you have to use the others" is reasonable. We want to provide a consistent experience so you cannot pick and choice which part of the bundle you use.

> [Google] made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices;

I don't see how this is a problem in a business. "Hey, we want to use our app. Here is some money if you agree to only use ours." Seems like a bog standard way of doing business.

> [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").

This one I think the Commission has made a good point with this one. This one does hamper competition because you have to choose Android or Android forks. Well, that is an obvious choice because of how big Android is. That is bad for competition and I am okay with Google being fined for it.

Overall I disagree with 2/3 of the reasons but I do respect the Commission to make the fines big enough that they hurt so that Google might change behavior.

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

#500

Post by maym86 »

endorphone wrote: post #305
Dayshine wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's read the law: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... >Article 102 >Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. >Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: >b) limiting production, markets or techni…

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…

BMW is not a monopoly. That's the key to this. Please keep that in mind.
Post reply on HN