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

641–650 of 975 posts

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

#641

Post by esrauch »

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.

I've never gone into the Bluetooth settings on my phone, that doesnt mean it's abusive that it was already there on my phone when I bought it.

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

#642

Post by gowld »

sly010 wrote: post #434
mrweasel wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic is that you're not allowed to use your position in one marked to gain influence in another. Google knows that most manufacturer needs their devices to ship with the Play Store, because that's where the apps are and smartphone without apps are useless. But they use the Play Store as leverage, forcing manufactures to also ship Chrome, rather than Opera, Firefox or their own browser and that's the bit that is…

> Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify. But they do. Telcos are not allowed to pre-install Spotify on iPhones, are they? iTunes on the other hand is pre-installed along with Safari, Apple Maps and Apple Podcast. Of course once you have the device you can do whatever you ... can. Similarly once you have your Android phone you can install an alternative browser. In fact I have had Samsung phones with two a…

Google doesn't offer an API to export your home screen config for use by an alternative home screen :-(

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

#643

Post by close04 »

frockington wrote: post #393
detaro wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A years-long investigation into a mega-corp is "trigger-happy" and cause for worry?

The amount of the fine is. Seems petty at best, vindictive at worst

The amount of the fine is literally proportional to the revenue that was made using the practices in question. The more money you make by breaking the rules, the bigger the fine. Which part is petty or vindictive?

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

#644

Post by ummonk »

antr wrote: post #210
rjvbk wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This fine isn't about monopoly. But Google: - has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store); - made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and - has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-inst…

- has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

This is the most clearly anti-competitive practice.

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

#645

Post by GeekyBear »

dmix wrote: post #610
GeekyBear wrote: post #607

Earlier 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.

I'd say that sneaking an install of your product onto people's computers when they are not expecting it is exploiting a dark pattern.

However, the point was that Chrome didn't mysteriously gain market share solely based on some sort of technical superiority.

Google paid to gain market share with the sorts of clueless users who click next during install wizards without reading anything.

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

#646

Post by cmsj »

Spivak wrote: post #606
maym86 wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In the EU, Android has about 75-80% market share if you look at the whole market, or nearly 100% if you look at the lower end of the market where iOS isn't available.

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

#647

Post by mattigames »

ktosobcy wrote: post #587
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.

Which would allow google to gain dominance in the mobile market... NOT. Google/Android won because it was very open and flexible, but the moment they started to dominate they started to push their agenda on OEMs users…

Yeah, Samsumg should have created their own OS, I'm sure that would have played really well for both companies... NOT.

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

#648

Post by gowld »

r_singh wrote: post #248
repolfx wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Firstly Android doesn't have a monopoly. The EU commission doesn't think so. Their press release* says that 80% of smart mobile devices in Europe, run on Android. * http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm

So Google could solve this problem by raising the price of its OS, increasing profits and decreasing market share, and leaving a billion with no access to smartphones at all.

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

#649

Post by cptskippy »

theptip wrote: post #628
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…

The GP didn't make the claim that the "product only succeeded because Google pushed it hard". All they said was that Google used their search monopoly to give it a big advantage. Chrome's quality was a necessary, but probably not sufficient condition for it to gain the market traction that it did.

Exactly, without Search pushing so hard the adoption rate would have been much slower and would have given Mozilla, Apple, and Microsoft time to respond.

Firefox has rapidly improved since it's inception and was rapidly stealing IE market share prior to Chrome.

Had Chrome not been rammed down people's throats then we might have a more even landscape than we do today.

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

#650

Post by keerthiko »

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?

Inbox, hangouts video calls, google earth, off the top of my head, spent 6months+ being chrome-only. H/o video calls over a year (just a few months ago became firefox compatible).
Post reply on HN