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

561–570 of 975 posts

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

#561

Post by nojvek »

dmix wrote: post #540
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.

You're missing the massive point that it was also happened to be far superior to Firefox and IE when it came out... And it held the #1 spot (by far) for nearly a decade while Firefox fumbled around and IE remained IE. It's crazy to say a product only succeeded because Google pushed it hard. Google (and Microsoft, Yahoo, etc) has a LONG list of failed products they pushed hard (Wave, Google Plus, etc). Did it play a r…

Chrome basically got a fresh start and built on top of existing WebKit codebase with new ideas. They did well with the “second mover advantage”

Firefox and IE were riddled with code debt issues so they couldn’t move fast.

Chrome was a great example of software written by a company with resources to dominate a huge market segment relatively quickly. I’m guessing Chrome earned Sundar Picchai a lot of good karma within Google to later become CEO.

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

#562

Post by endorphone »

wongarsu wrote: post #486
zaroth wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 AOS…

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

Microsoft does force Internet Explorer cum Edge on everyone. They never stopped. When the EU forced them to offer a trivial "justify a giant fine" selection tool it did essentially nothing in regards to browser share. It keeps getting cited as the precedent, and while it is in the "EU makes some fat bank" way, it did absolutely nothing for consumers. And that's for an OS that was tremendously more entrenched, whereas I recently swapped out my GS8 for an iPhone 8 with nary a hiccup (and as an aside still enjoy all those Google services).

There is so much bullshit happening throughout this discussion.

Elsewhere people are claiming that Chrome became popular because Google pushed it on their homepage, which is just ridiculous, revisionist nonsense. Chrome became popular because it earned word of mouth as a lighter, faster browser. It exploded. The same happened with Firefox. Because the platform was open and allowed you to choose whatever you want to run. Just as I can and do run Firefox on Android.

Further, vendors/carriers only abuse the right to put in alternatives. It is traditionally called crapware.

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

#563

Post by scarface74 »

typon wrote: post #449
dlp211 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think Android's popularity and extremely quick adoption owes itself to the fact that it's open source.

It owes to being free not open source. OEMs really only had three choices. Create their own OS (horrible choice), use Windows Mobile or use Android. The deciding factor was free. Phone manufacturers no more cared about open source than Windows anufacturers.

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

#564

Post by briandear »

dtech wrote: post #410
endorphone wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there aren't because BMW absolutely squashed the possibility of that at the outset. But Google, apparently, deserves a $5B fine because they made a mistake of powering AOSP phones, the Amazon products, countless variations in China, set top boxes, etc. It is incredible seeing Google being seriously attacked on here for have an open source path as well. I feel like this is some sort of alternative universe.

> But Google, apparently, deserves a $5B fine because they made a mistake of powering AOSP phones This is incredibly (deliberately?) misrepresentative. They are being punished for having a monopoly and (ab)using that. If Apple/iPhone had an 80% market share in EU the commission would be gunning for them instead, e.g. because of their closed ecosystem preventing competition.

Why isn’t the EU gunning for Airbus, Safran and Arianespace? Airbus and Safran had a joint venture to build rockets, then the EU approved the sale of Arianespace to Airbus for a tiny $166 million. Now in space vehicles and launches, Airbus practically owns all of it in Europe. It effectively shuts out competing rocket makers. If you buy an Airbus rocket, you are forced to hire their Arianespace wholy owned subsidiary to launch it.

And this deal was approved by the EU and it specifically grants a monopoly to Airbus for European rocket manufacturing and launch.

The point is that the EU doesn’t care that much about monopolies— they care that much about American tech monopolies. It’s economic populism. I am not saying anything about the merits of the Android case, only pointing out that the EU doesn’t pursue EU companies with as much vigor. €5 billion is a significant payday for the EU — especially when that money comes from an American company.

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

#565

Post by endorphone »

jhasse wrote: post #492
zaroth wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Neat. So the OS allowed you to choose alternatives and to avoid Chrome wholly. So you're fully of the opinion that the EU argument has no merit then, right?

Of course, saying it's a part of the Android/Google Experience is from the average consumer. You know that you have the Chrome browser if you so choose. Yes, you can go to the Play Store and install Firefox. Unlike on iOS where the browser alternatives are facades.

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

#566

Post by amelius »

ToFab123 wrote: post #255
codeulike wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if there was one group I would expect to complain about anti-competitive behaviour, that would probably be competitors.

In a monopoly situation there a not many competitors. It is a monopoly. mono = one

I guess there is also the case where new competitors want to enter the market, but can't because of the monopolist and the barriers it has created.

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

#567

Post by ocdtrekkie »

dmix wrote: post #540
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.

You're missing the massive point that it was also happened to be far superior to Firefox and IE when it came out... And it held the #1 spot (by far) for nearly a decade while Firefox fumbled around and IE remained IE. It's crazy to say a product only succeeded because Google pushed it hard. Google (and Microsoft, Yahoo, etc) has a LONG list of failed products they pushed hard (Wave, Google Plus, etc). Did it play a r…

Actually, the biggest thing in Chrome's favor was being an installer pack-in. People still get sometimes Chrome installed on them if they go download Adobe Reader without unchecking the box. (McAfee Security Scan Plus is Adobe's other paid pack-in, you might see that instead, depending on your location.) People seem to vastly forget that a large part of Chrome's dominance of the ordinary user is the fact that installing half a dozen plugins or tools on Windows has or still installs Chrome and sets it as your default browser.

When doing PC support for layusers, I've found that: Most people don't know what Chrome is, and don't know the difference between it, Edge, IE, and the malicious Chromium fork they have installed on their PCs. (Side note: May the soulless individuals behind the "WebDiscover Browser" suffer a life of misery and despair as punishment for their crimes.) They end up with Chrome (or a malicious fork thereof) due to a bundle installer.

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

#568

Post by contravariant »

VikingCoder wrote: post #545
contravariant wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure if that would bring them in the clear, Microsoft got fined for forcing Internet Explorer onto Windows users for instance.

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

#569

Post by nojvek »

maym86 wrote: post #495

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?

Whatever we say about the EU, it seems they’re keeping US companies in check.

Sure GDPR is vague and had Edge cases, but it’s been a huge boon to the world. Thank you EU.

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

#570

Post by Andrex »

calcifer wrote: post #365
izacus wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This literally strengthens Apple because they'll keep shipping services with integrated features (banning competition) while Android devices will be banned from providing the same integrated experience.

I don't understand why people keep making this argument. It's not about having integrated services. It's about abusing your dominance in one service to force another onto OEMs and consumers. Apple has no market dominance in the EU, so nothing in this ruling is relevant to them.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN