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

631–640 of 975 posts

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

#631

Post by gowld »

r_singh wrote: post #224
ensiferum wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android is only open in theory, closed in practice.

AOSP does not include proprietary apps like the Play Store, etc. In order for device manufacturers to get the Play Store on their phone, they have to give in to Google's demands to add the Google search box on the home screen of the phones. Apart from this, Qualcomm doesn't release open source drivers for GPUs etc, making it even harder to use pure AOSP on flagship devices.

Qualcomm blocked Google from using Proprietary Android on its devices! One of the Nexus phones couldn't upgrade the OS to the next version due to Qualcomm drivers.

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

#632

Post by ummonk »

mattmanser wrote: post #141
repolfx wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Android isn't a phone maker. It's a component that is usually customised. Now go look at who are making phones on this base: Samsung is the most popular but it doesn't have a monopoly. Is the EU going to fine ARM next for having a monopoly on mobile CPUs?

It's not that at all. It's abuse of dominance, not the dominance itself that's the problem. They're using a dominant position in one market to push services in an unrelated market. That's anti-trust 101. And they punish suppliers who don't tow the line. This is exactly the same as the MS anti-trust case. Swap IE for Google Web Services (Search/Maps/Chrome) and swap Android for Windows. If ARM started forcing phone co…

They're using a dominant position in one market to push services in an unrelated market.

Note that for the purposes of this ruling, the relevant dominant position isn't in Android, but the Google Play Store.

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

#633

Post by pertymcpert »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #437
Dayshine wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And if we just go around clubbing everything coarsely, why does my BMW have a BMW entertainment system Because BMW don't have market dominance in either the car industry or the entertainment system industry. If they used dominance in one to affect the other, they would be in breach of that legislation. >This is absolutely not at all clear cut. It is incredibly nuanced So how do you explain Google's non-compliance wh…

So it's only against the law once the company becomes big enough? If, for example, BMW _did_ become an extremely successful car manufacturer to the point where they were capturing >80% of the market, would they suddenly no longer be allowed to bundle their own entertainment system with their cars?

Yes, this is how the law works. You surprised?

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

#634

Post by mattigames »

nojvek wrote: post #591
mattigames wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, what Google is learning here is that you should never license your OS/sell to other manufacturers and never make it open-source and just go the Apple route instead, create the device yourself and make the OS completely proprietary and closed.

That would work if Google was really good at their own hardware. They aren’t. Android’s rise to dominance was mostly because of partners like Samsung. Personal preference but Samsung phones are the only ones which I see are comparable to latest iPhones in terms of speed, features and price.

Yeah, Google need to buy Samsumg or the closest one they can get and start doing quality hardware.

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

#635

Post by pertymcpert »

LamaOfRuin wrote: post #530
trasz wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor nit: Google didn't have to Open Source the whole Android because of Linux; Linux is just one of many components, and Linux' license doesn't apply to the rest of the software there.

This is always an interesting problem of definition and separation. If all the things google claims are absolutely essential and inseparable as part of 'Android' the license could well be interpreted as requiring them to open source all of it. If, on the other hand, these are all separate pieces of software and not totally dependent to deliver the end 'experience' then that contradicts some of Google's legal argument…

The GPL issue is completely separate. The law regarding GPL and where is applies vs LGPL is well understood.

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

#636

Post by HillaryBriss »

phobosdeimos wrote: post #553
_khau wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 find this nationalist concern for a global corporation amusing. Does Alphabet consider itself American? Its shareholders live all over the world.

though I'm an American who lives in California, i feel zero loyalty to Google.

and that absence of loyalty is reciprocated. Google isn't doing me any favors.

if Google disappeared tomorrow someone else would step into replace them. and i wouldn't care if they headquartered in Buffalo or Barcelona or Beijing.

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

#637

Post by stingraycharles »

endorphone wrote: post #571
itsmenotyou wrote: post #461

Earlier 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.

So good of you to cut right through the nuance. But of course to an Android buyer, it is all a part of the experience with the device. They know what to expect and what is there. "he same sort of obfuscation Microsoft used when they argued a web browser" And Microsoft was right . Windows has Explorer or Edge. It still does . The EU giant fine did absolutely nothing but made them realize that cashing in big on America…

“But of course to an Android buyer, it is all a part of the experience with the device. They know what to expect and what is there.”

The problem is that by not giving the choice makes this anti-competitive behaviour. What’s wrong with giving Samsung the ability to make a deal with Yahoo to install Yahoo as the default in their Android phones?

If they claim it’s all part of their integrated experience, then they should provide the necessary APIs/SDKs for other search providers to integrate properly.

We’ve been over this before, it’s anti-competitive behaviour, and it lacks choice.

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

#638

Post by cptskippy »

wallace_f wrote: post #597
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.

Not in disbelief, but could you link me to a source detailing this bribery?

It wasn't Bribery, it was intense lobbying and campaign contributions. There's a subtle difference between them in America politics.

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

#639

Post by gowld »

mattigames wrote: post #538
jpetso wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But I can't make this work unless I squash the competition by abusing my monopoly" is not a good argument for allowing it to happen, even if it were true here. The alternative is not to have no operating system, but to have a healthy market of other, possibly smaller, likely more operating systems instead.

In real life more operating systems means crappier software because now developers need to create versions for each one in order to be profitable, and not the "vast array on awesome options" open source enthusiasts would like to imagine.

It's a constant tension. In the real world single party government is more efficient than multiparty democracy. But most of the world hasn't clamored for single party rule unless it's their personalo preferred party

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

#640

Post by ummonk »

yorwba wrote: post #78
vatueil wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems kinda perverse. After all, you can't fork Windows, macOS, or iOS at all. Why should making Android more open than the competition lead to worse punishment?

It's not making Android more open that leads to the punishment here. Google made Android more open when they open-sourced AOSP; they made it more closed when they prohibited manufacturers from actually forking Android in a way Google doesn't like. The behavior that is punished is the use of their market power to negate the open-sourcing, not the open-sourcing itself.

They are free to fork Android though and use it however they want, as Amazon did. They just can't install the Google Play Store without including the other Google apps which Google claims are part of a unified experience.
Post reply on HN