651–660 of 975 posts
Can 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Apple doesn't license their OS to OEMs. I'd say them blocking alternative browser engines is controversial though. Also they dislike people using certain libraries, emulator technology, providing the ability to execute downloadable scripts (e.g. flash), etc.
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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither of those actions are illegal per se, but just because you it's not illegal to dictate terms doesn't mean you're allowed to choose any terms you want. The problem here is that Google allegedly dictated terms that gave them an unfair advantage in an unrelated market, breaching EU antitrust law. A stricter antitrust law might have prevented them from gaining such a dominant position in the first place, but that…
So to be clear, IF Google had manufactured all of the phones themselves, and had never open sourced Android, then they could have kept Chrome and Search on Android, and there would have been no problem, right? But because Google let other people manufacture Androids, and because Google open sourced Android, now it's a problem? The logic of this is just baffling to me.
And secondly, they're not being punished for having an open source operating system. They're being punished for forcing manufacturers to install their suite of software (simplified). It's not because they open sourced Android. I repeat, it's NOT BECAUSE THEY OPEN SOURCED ANDROID.
I 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 busine…
Google's response to the ruling: https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/andro...
Adresses exactly none of the three points they were fined other? > The decision ignores the fact that Android phones compete with iOS phones, Except as explicitly stated in the decision. > This is possible thanks to simple rules that ensure technical compatibility, no matter what the size or shape of the device. No phone maker is even obliged to sign up to these rules Except for the very definition of anti-trust and…
>Except as explicitly stated in the decision.
Well the EU simply argued they don't compete because iPhones tend to cost more and it's hard to switch. I feel like your average person would admit you have a choice between the two, which is what competition is.
Official release here: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
I 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 busine…
Fragmentation is 99% FUD right now. If everybody starts shipping huge forks of Android; with silently diverging APIs, it will be a nightmare.
And that's just for devs.
I guess my point is that I see why the EU reached this conclusion but I am unsure this will be a net benefit for devs and consumers.
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…
I mean, you really could have said the same thing about IE 4 when it came out. It was actually better than Communicator at the time, which was a bloated, unfocused, mess of a browser.
It's hard to find news and reviews from 1997 to back me up, but here are a couple accounts I found recollecting their experiences with the browsers: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Netscape-lose-ground-to-IE
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other main difference it that the EU is punishing Google, while turning a blind eye to Microsoft's behavior. They were only fined for bundling IE and WMP with their OS. Locking customers out of competing operating systems is much more harmful in my opinion. The only EU mention of Windows bundling I can find is an Italian court ordering that customers should be able to get a refund for the Windows tax.
I'd say that, in this day and age, preventing vendors from using Android forks counts as a form of locking customers out of competing operating systems. Even more so now that Android forks represent the only serious alternative available to any phone manufacturer who isn't based in Cupertino. Also, two wrongs don't make a right. Microsoft getting off way too easy does not mean that Google should get off easy, too.
There are lots of cheap Chinese Android phones simply filled with malware from the factory.
If Google allowed phone makers to ship Android forks, this whole problem would become a lot worse. I think this Google policy is actually pro-consumer, and the EU is wrong on this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can be open. You just can’t use contracts to extend your monopoly to other areas. This is not an open/closed dichotomy. This is a free/controlled market issue.
I literally don't understand. If Google manufactured all Android phones, and Android were closed source, and Android came pre-installed with the Play Store, Search, and Chrome, I think it wouldn't be a problem, right? That turns this into an open/closed dichotomy.