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

501–510 of 975 posts

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

#501

Post by Ienuur4i »

_pghu wrote: post #469
anilakar wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this yet another case of trying to apply an American interpretation to a European law? I thought we all had a similar discussion when GDPR came into effect.

Hopefully it isn't yet another case of smug Europeans preening and going "Oh, you stupid Americans, our regulators are different and would never levy gigantic fines. Instead, they come give you a hug and have a cup of tea and politely ask you to please stop, and they would never ever in a billion years abuse this extremely wide-ranging law for political ends!"

> Instead, they come give you a hug and have a cup of tea and politely ask you to please stop

They did. Google didn't comply.

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

#503

Post by chmod775 »

gergles wrote: post #467
chmod775 wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android experience". They manifestly have a profound connection with each other. Fire OS and my personal phone which is running a Google-free version of LineageOS would like to have a word. > And if we just go around clubbing everything coarsely, why does my BMW have a BMW entertainment system? BMW doesn't have a dominant market position it could abuse. Nei…

> Fire OS and my personal phone which is running a Google-free version of LineageOS would like to have a word. Hilariously, you just made the parent's point for them - you yourself said you aren't running Android but Fire OS or LineageOS. Android , the product, comes with Chrome, Google Search, and the Google Play Store. If you want Android, you have to take all of Android. If you want to run something else, go for i…

This is just factually wrong.

Android is a separate software project that is developed separately from Google Play Services. The Android OS works perfectly without those installed.

There's no "Chrome, Google Search, and the Google Play Store" in the Android repository. Especially since Android is open source, and most of the latter APKs are not.

I suggest to actually have a look at the a android project before making claims like these. This page is a good place to start: https://source.android.com/setup/

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

#504

Post by tomaha »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #370
tomaha wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this definition is that it also assumes that if you have 75%+ market share you're likely having a similar share of the profits which is not the case here. If you take profit into account it's really at best a 50-50 market for Google.

So if price pressure from consumers forces down your profit then you should be allowed to exploit a monopolistic position to leverage profits in another sector? Like, own all cinemas in a country but home-viewing keeps profit low, so now it's fine to only allow people to visit your cinemas if they buy clothes from your clothing company?

A better example would be you own 75%+ of the cinemas but revenue wise you only control 50% of it. And in that case I think it's fair to do it. If they would force Apple out that would be a problem, but instead they even give you the basis for your own cinema for free (in contrast to Apple).

Edit:perfect->problem

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

#505

Post by cageface »

All it takes is a little thought experiment to see why this doesn't make sense:

Let's say Google didn't license Android but instead only sold their own Pixel devices and somehow managed to achieve dominant market share this way. With good marketing and multiple price points this could easily have happened. Google search is the default but users can switch it to something else. This would be fine under the current reading of the law, right? So what this ruling is effectively doing is punishing Google for trying to create an open mobile ecosystem to compete with iOS's closed approach. How is this helpful to consumers?

Feels like a lot of recent EU rulings on technology are well intentioned but actually make things worse for consumers by picking favorites and raising barriers to entry.

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

#506

Post by scarface74 »

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…

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.

Google also claimed that this ruling would hurt open source projects in favor of “proprietary platforms”, but everything that provides the “Android experience” - Google Play Services and the binary drivers - are closed sourced.

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

#507

Post by DenisM »

luispedrocoelho wrote: post #318

As a matter of law, the EC may be right, but as a matter of user experience, the idea that the Android market suffers from not having enough OEM-installed software on devices is a bit of a stretch. In all android phones/tablets I have seen there are a few shitty OEM apps that I have never found to be even close in quality to the google versions. The EC claims that google have "denied European consumers the benefits o…

Yes some phones will be junk, but is up to the consumers to chose, not up to monopolists.

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

#508

Post by PunchTornado »

cageface wrote: post #505

All it takes is a little thought experiment to see why this doesn't make sense: Let's say Google didn't license Android but instead only sold their own Pixel devices and somehow managed to achieve dominant market share this way. With good marketing and multiple price points this could easily have happened. Google search is the default but users can switch it to something else. This would be fine under the current rea…

no, it would not be ok and it owuld still get fined if it was in a dominant position.

the only reason Apple doesn't get a fine for iOS is because it doesn't have 80% of the market share.

this is the law

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

#509

Post by Daishiman »

frockington wrote: post #393
detaro wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A years-long investigation into a mega-corp is "trigger-happy" and cause for worry?

The amount of the fine is. Seems petty at best, vindictive at worst

I'm sorry in what planet do you get to not be heavily punished after openly ignoring the law for two years?

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

#510

Post by DenisM »

cageface wrote: post #505

All it takes is a little thought experiment to see why this doesn't make sense: Let's say Google didn't license Android but instead only sold their own Pixel devices and somehow managed to achieve dominant market share this way. With good marketing and multiple price points this could easily have happened. Google search is the default but users can switch it to something else. This would be fine under the current rea…

It wouldn’t be ok. You can’t use one monopolistic product to gain advantage in another market. Microsoft was forced to randomize browser selection in Windows, remember?
Post reply on HN