European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case • Hacker News Board

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

#541

Post by Veelox » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:48 PM UTC

ionised wrote: post #526

Veelox wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do care about companies that abuse their position as a monopoly. I think its probably right that Google gets fined for not allowing companies to sell Android forks. What I have a problem with is that if a company is doing some standard business practice, like paying a different company to exclusively use their product, that is okay when they are a not a monopoly but that suddenly become not okay because they have b…

Because a monopoly is a special status that infers special powers and special responsibilities. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand in that.

>Because a monopoly is a special status that infers special powers and special responsibilities.

In principal I have a problem with legally treating a company different if they have 85% market share as opposed to 30%. I am okay with making anti-competitive practices illegal but we should also enforce those on small companies.

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

#542

Post by keerthiko » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:49 PM UTC

joering2 wrote: post #513

philipodonnell wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also Internet Explorer. This case seems almost a mirror of MS except in the phone space instead of PC. Only difference is that when the issue came up in Congress, MS was confrontational with regulators and Google cut some fat checks.

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.

Why is that a shocker? They own google.com and they want to upsell another product, and aren't forcing it upon users or vendors. This seems like normal/standard business practice. Bundling IE with Windows was not the problem, but forcing PC vendors to only sell with Windows installed, and aggressively forcing IE to be the default browser was.

On the other hand, building "web" apps that only run on chrome, that was a shocker for me.

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

#543

Post by sjwright » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:50 PM UTC

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…

> And if we just go around clubbing everything coarsely, why does my BMW have a BMW entertainment system?

BMW is not forcing BMW to install a BMW entertainment system.

BMW can install whatever entertainment system BMW likes.

Google is forcing other phone makers to install certain Google apps. The issue is not with what Google does for their own products, but what they force other phone makers to do. That is the key point—this ruling wouldn't (or shouldn't) apply to Google's own Pixel products.

Now if Bosch was forcing BMW to install Bosch windscreen wipers as a requirement on any car with Bosch collision avoidance systems, there you might have a valid analogy.

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

#544

Post by tylerl » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:50 PM UTC

readhn wrote: post #391

Is google too big now and may have to be broken down? Is having someone as big as google a good thing for the rest of us? Would society, economies etc benefit from google broken down into several smaller independent companies?

One money-making company (ads) and dozens of money-losing ones? No, you would simply cease to have Android, cease to have maps, cease to have docs, etc. That's not better for anyone (except maybe Apple and Microsoft).

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

#545

Post by VikingCoder » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

contravariant wrote: post #478

VikingCoder wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, Apple is a brutal dictatorship that doesn't share anything? That's fine. Oh, Google, you're willing to share almost everything with anyone for free, but you want to put terms on that? Hey, here's a giant fine. I just don't understand the logic of this at all.

Neither of those actions are illegal per se, but just because you it's not illegal to dictate terms doesn't mean you're allowed to choose any terms you want. The problem here is that Google allegedly dictated terms that gave them an unfair advantage in an unrelated market, breaching EU antitrust law. A stricter antitrust law might have prevented them from gaining such a dominant position in the first place, but that…

So to be clear,

IF Google had manufactured all of the phones themselves, and had never open sourced Android, then they could have kept Chrome and Search on Android, and there would have been no problem, right?

But because Google let other people manufacture Androids, and because Google open sourced Android, now it's a problem?

The logic of this is just baffling to me.

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

#546

Post by LamaOfRuin » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

_khau wrote: post #514

_pghu wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!"

Every time a US company is fined there are people that claim it is all protectionism and punishment with nothing to back it up (ironic, considering the degree of protectionism the US engages in). They are just sour that their precious tech companies are being brought to task for behaving like shitty house guests by not following the rules. These companies might be able to get away with whatever the hell they please b…

I have no problem with the result, or the punitive nature of it. I do think that basing fine calculations for violations of EU law on global revenue is a problematic precedent (though if it was based on EU revenue it would absolutely have to have a fair amount of latitude in calculation to avoid all the same tax dodges already in use).

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

#547

Post by nemothekid » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:52 PM UTC

mrweasel wrote: post #339

VikingCoder wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, Apple is a brutal dictatorship that doesn't share anything? That's fine. Oh, Google, you're willing to share almost everything with anyone for free, but you want to put terms on that? Hey, here's a giant fine. I just don't understand the logic of this at all.

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…

>Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify, to force users to iTunes, and if they didn't then no iPhones on that carriers network.

Doesn't Apple already do this with the App Store? You can't buy an iPhone with Spotify pre-installed and Apple Music can leverage its position of not having to give another company a 30% cut to undercut spotify's prices.

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

#548

Post by VikingCoder » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:52 PM UTC

princekolt wrote: post #375

VikingCoder wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, Apple is a brutal dictatorship that doesn't share anything? That's fine. Oh, Google, you're willing to share almost everything with anyone for free, but you want to put terms on that? Hey, here's a giant fine. I just don't understand the logic of this at all.

> I just don't understand the logic of this at all. That doesn't mean it is wrong. =)

I'm asking for help understanding. And you know that. ಠ_ಠ

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

#549

Post by unit91 » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

keerthiko wrote: post #542

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.

Why is that a shocker? They own google.com and they want to upsell another product, and aren't forcing it upon users or vendors. This seems like normal/standard business practice. Bundling IE with Windows was not the problem, but forcing PC vendors to only sell with Windows installed, and aggressively forcing IE to be the default browser was. On the other hand, building "web" apps that only run on chrome, that was a…

> On the other hand, building "web" apps that only run on chrome, that was a shocker for me.

Wow, I wasn't aware of this. Do you recall any examples?

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

#550

Post by Piskvorrr » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

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…

And I get a phone that's six years old and still works as designed, despite bloat pouring in from app vendors. I understand that I should have dumped that as a brick of e-waste to a landfill, seven years ago. Imagine a very uncivil rant starting from here, on where you should stuff your privileged SV advice.