This one frustrated me to read, i think they should have gotten involved sooner and worked with google. Instead they slap a crazy high fee for something that is vague in violation. It does feel a bit like a vendetta here by the EU.
European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
61–70 of 975 posts
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#62Can Google just close shop in the EU and ignore the fine? Nothing they provide really mandates they have a physical presence.
Well no, they need the EU to evade taxes in their home country.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#63Nice way to pay for things, fining the crap out of foreign companies.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#64Can Google just close shop in the EU and ignore the fine? Nothing they provide really mandates they have a physical presence.
They could but they'd lose access to the economy with the largest spending power per capita in the world. Inevitably another player would spring up to feed this void and could then use that as a platform to start eating their lunch elsewhere.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#65Can Google just close shop in the EU and ignore the fine? Nothing they provide really mandates they have a physical presence.
They have many employees and large revenues here. Its not as easy to say all revenue from now on goes to the US.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#66Can anyone concisely explain what this fine is for, and also why the same wouldn't apply to Apple for iOS? It seems to be a rehash of the issue that Microsoft faced when it only gave you Internet Explorer on install. But iOS comes with only Safari on install, and forces you to use Apple's various apps - how is this any different?
A better source: > The European Commission has accused Google of abusing its Android market dominance by bundling its search engine and Chrome apps into the operating system. Google has also allegedly blocked phone makers from creating devices that run forked versions of Android. https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-e... > How is it any different Apple doesn’t have a dominent search engine to pu…
That first claim is clearly wrong though.
Firstly, Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe and their devices can be bought everywhere.
Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google, notably the Amazon phones and tablets. They weren't that popular with consumers but that's not Google's fault: it just means consumers highly value the additional services Google provides.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#67Can anyone concisely explain what this fine is for, and also why the same wouldn't apply to Apple for iOS? It seems to be a rehash of the issue that Microsoft faced when it only gave you Internet Explorer on install. But iOS comes with only Safari on install, and forces you to use Apple's various apps - how is this any different?
From Wikipedia:
In their Statement of Objections, the European Commission accused Google of the breach of EU antitrust rules in three ways:
- by requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;
- by preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
- by giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the same, IIRC that was for favoring their own services in search results.
Thanks. Looks like they are getting used to paying fines as a regular part of their business. Maybe in future earning reports we will see statements like "Legal fines went up 80% YOY from $7B to $12B and we are planning to continue our aggressive spendings in this area to expand our market dominance".
When the fines are lower than the expected benefit from your "wrongdoing" then what's the incentive to stop?
As a person getting caught stealing/defrauding/etc. you would have to pay restitution and additional fines/time in prison. This is how it should work for businesses to. If the goal is to actually prevent future abuse.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#69Earlier 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.
There's no implied assumption about profits.
I agree that assumption is the wrong word. But do you have examples of monopolies that didn't take the profits and control the pricing of the markets they control?
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the European Commission alleges that Android has an 80% market share in Europe: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm (fifth paragraph) But for this case, they are using a definition that makes Android even more dominant: they allege that Google restricts device manufacturers' freedoms. And from a device manufacturer point of view, Android has a 90+% market share of "licensable smart mobile ope…
That is fair enough - though is there really any competition in that space? Even if Google did nothing, I imagine most manufacturers would continue using Android as there isn't much choice. I don't actually know any mobile OS other than iOS and Android variants. Blackberry, Nokia (?) and Windows for mobile are all pretty much dead at this point.
Of course there is. Mobile OEMs are quite capable of making their own operating systems and not so many years ago they all did. Of course Apple does, and Samsung still does with Tizen, from what I know.
These alternatives mostly suck but "your competitors suck" is not grounds for an anti-trust violation. No phone vendor is forced to deal with Google, that's an absurd distortion of the facts. Even if they feel their own in-house engineering abilities are so weak they can't make a better platform than Android, they can still take the open source code and use it as a base, providing their own mapping and app store along the way ... just like Apple do.