European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

Post by ionised » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:40 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #407

endorphone wrote: post #286

This is a dangerous ruling that pushes the world further into the potential for trade wars by proxy. Contrary to numerous posts- -no, the law isn't "clear". This is an incredibly nuanced situation, and the notion that Google was just overtly flouting (ed: thx sjcsjc) the law is outright nonsense. Google has a huge litany of bad practices (I personally recently switched my daily driver to an iPhone for that reason), b…

Small fines don't work. Large fines get attention.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:42 PM UTC

ToFab123 wrote: post #519

joering2 wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also Chrome. Chrome was the biggest shocker to many @ Goog. Even as a Noogler, people often sit down in cafeteria and talked about how Chrome got traction and so popular only because it got a main spot on Google's homepage; something noone, no company or individual advertiser can ever bid for. If that's not Google's "Microsoft Internet Explorer anti-trust" moment, then nothing is.

What is a "noogler"?

Post by ckastner » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:42 PM UTC

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…

Post by thisisit » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:43 PM UTC

endorphone wrote: post #286

This is a dangerous ruling that pushes the world further into the potential for trade wars by proxy. Contrary to numerous posts- -no, the law isn't "clear". This is an incredibly nuanced situation, and the notion that Google was just overtly flouting (ed: thx sjcsjc) the law is outright nonsense. Google has a huge litany of bad practices (I personally recently switched my daily driver to an iPhone for that reason), b…

Post by arminiusreturns » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:43 PM UTC

dlp211 wrote: post #382

typon wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google had gone the open source route out of the goodness of their hearts, you'd have an argument. Google went the open source route to bootstrap on top of a well known operating system (Linux), as well as to accelerate adoption and catch up to Apple as fast as they could. Then once they got market dominance, they abused their position to stifle competition.

There is nothing that you said that requires Android to be open source.