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

601–610 of 975 posts

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

#601

Post by ummonk »

endorphone wrote: post #320
typon wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there car dealers trying to offer a la carte car + entertainment system packages but are being shut down by BMW?

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.

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.

Exactly. The takeaway from this seems to be to not open up your system a little bit, because then you'll need to go all the way. Whereas e.g. Apple, which built a completely closed phone system from the start, doesn't get any trouble (even when it dominated the smartphone market). Really backwards ruling. And I say this as someone who happily switched to an iPhone to escape Google's data collection.

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

#602

Post by DenisM »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #588
whostolemyhat wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft had to have a browser choice screen the first time you tried to use IE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu

> Microsoft had to have a browser choice screen the first time you tried to use IE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu And if that actually restores competition then you don't need a five billion dollar fine.

Both punitive and compensatory/reparation measures habevtgeir place.

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

#603

Post by paglia_s »

guelo wrote: post #598

The fact that Google allows other OEMs to install their OS, as opposed to Apple which does not, is being used against them. If the lesson that Google learns is that it will kill it's OEM program then consumers will be worse off.

Why would Google have to allow OEMs to install their OS? They do not control the hardware, what google does is not allowing OEMs accessing it's services like Google Play unless it installs a lot of other apps like Gmail, Maps, Google search...

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

#604

Post by javver »

unit91 wrote: post #549
keerthiko wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

At least the web version of Google Earth is like that.

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

#605

Post by AlphaSite »

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…

It’s literally the definition of leveraging a monopoly to enter a market.

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

#606

Post by Spivak »

maym86 wrote: post #500
endorphone wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

BMW is not a monopoly. That's the key to this. Please keep that in mind.

Monopoly is not a state of being it's something you have over a specific market segment. What does Google have a monopoly on?

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

#607

Post by GeekyBear »

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…

Also, Google paid to have their browser installed through the installers of other companies software, by default.

For instance, by default, the installer for AVG's free antivirus program would install Google Chrome and make it the default browser.

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

#609

Post by meiraleal »

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…

> This is a dangerous ruling that pushes the world further into the potential for trade wars by proxy.

I think that this is already a counter-attack of "dieselgate".

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

#610

Post by dmix »

GeekyBear wrote: post #607
dmix wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Also, Google paid to have their browser installed through the installers of other companies software, by default. For instance, by default, the installer for AVG's free antivirus program would install Google Chrome and make it the default browser.

I don't see any problem with doing a few partnerships like these. Even with some major companies. Firefox could easily do the same.

It's only a problem when you squeeze out competition by doing exclusive contracts with all major distributors in a particular distribution channel.

Post reply on HN