Finally its official that Google does evil - good to see this even it came many years too late, same as it was with Microsoft and IE. But better late, then never. Now if only the US would do something similae.
European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
611–620 of 975 posts
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#612Can 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?
Apple does not have a monopoly dominant position. In my country I think they are like 10% of the market. You can't abuse your dominant position if you don't have one.
The law should be the same for all companies and should not depend on which companies are monopolies.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#613Can 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?
> why the same wouldn't apply to Apple for iOS? Microsoft got into trouble because they forced companies like Dell and HP to make their products feature Internet Explorer. Google is getting into trouble now because they're forcing companies like Samsung and LG to make their products feature Chrome. Apple is not getting into trouble now because Apple is not forcing Apple to make their products feature Safari. Obviousl…
>There is no OEM here being bullied.
Right, only the end users are harmed, as it should be.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#614Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is the Play Store related to the Google Seach app or to Chrome? - They're not, and the attempt to claim they are part of a mobile "suite" is the same sort of obfuscation Microsoft used when they argued a web browser (IE) was an essential part of a desktop OS. This ruling seems obvious to me.
> same sort of obfuscation Microsoft used when they argued a web browser (IE) was an essential part of a desktop OS How is a web browser not an essential part of a desktop OS. Literally every single consumer operating system comes bundled with a web browser, and in fact everyone bundles their own OSX: Safari ChromeOS: Chrome Windows: Edge
"Essential" and "useful" are not the same thing. A web browser isn't an essential part of a desktop OS the same way a network card isn't an essential part of a computer. Even though network cards come with most computers due to frequently being useful, they're not essential to the computer being a computer... computers can very much come without them, which people occasionally also find useful. Also, times have changed, and the web has become a far bigger part of people's life than it used to be.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#615Earlier 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…
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 install…
I don't see how partnering with a few other software companies to distribute software via installers is a bad thing or a sign of monopolistic practices (aka limiting competition and harming customers by forcing them to use a product they wouldn't otherwise)...
It's a bit shady to make it 'automatically the default browser'. But that is a problem with the OS. An installer shouldn't be able to make that choice for the user.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#616Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is the Play Store related to the Google Seach app or to Chrome? - They're not, and the attempt to claim they are part of a mobile "suite" is the same sort of obfuscation Microsoft used when they argued a web browser (IE) was an essential part of a desktop OS. This ruling seems obvious to me.
> same sort of obfuscation Microsoft used when they argued a web browser (IE) was an essential part of a desktop OS How is a web browser not an essential part of a desktop OS. Literally every single consumer operating system comes bundled with a web browser, and in fact everyone bundles their own OSX: Safari ChromeOS: Chrome Windows: Edge
> How is a web browser not an essential part of a desktop OS.
MS argued that the specific web browser IE was essential and I think that's the type of argument that is problematic, both for MS and Google
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#617Can 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…
They also don’t have an iOS consortium nor do work with other makers, so there is no bullying makers into doing what they want “or else”.
That's the issue though. It seems that Google is being punished for being somewhat willing to work with other makers.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#618I feel the EU needs to educate their government. Microsoft != Google when it comes to the Android OS. Google made Android free to make cheap devices possible for everyone to be able to afford a smartphone. They include their search engine as a way to fund all of their contribution to the development of Android. Manufacturers can pay to remove Google, it's still an option for them. How is this not a trustworthy business model?
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#619Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Excellent points. Chrome has the best development tools. I used the dev tools so much that I just launch Chrome out of habit when I want to browse the web.
While at the same time they've been stripping out vital features or outright disabling them on mobile. It's almost like gasp they don't care about the users but only their bottom line.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#620Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But only you can leverage your monopoly on search to know exactly which products are worth having those contracts with.