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

661–670 of 975 posts

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

#661

Post by guelo »

gowld wrote: post #626
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.

Not quite. The problem is that Google offered Android Open Source for free but then didn't allow its parrtners to use it freely. If they never open sourced Android they wouldn't have this problem.

So you're saying this is an attack on open source licenses that have conditions on them?

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

#662

Post by hesarenu »

glenndebacker wrote: post #281
zmk_ wrote: post #272

I find this fine bizarre. Sure, Android is dominating the European markets, but I find it to be a good thing. I am surprised that the EU commission never investigated Apple. I don't know when they stopped doing it, but Apple used to remove apps from their store that were duplicating Apple provided services. I also think that manufacturers have themselves to thank. AOSP used to be quite complete in the old days, but e…

"Sure, Android is dominating the European markets, but I find it to be a good thing. I am surprised that the EU commission never investigated Apple." You are answering your own question. The problem is that Apple is not under investigation because it has 15% a 20% marketshare and so it's impact is regarded as rather small and not seen as a monopoly. When you have a big share of the pie there are other rules that appl…

20% would still be in millions. Those many of users would have little bit less choice.

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

#663

Post by Radle »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #621
DenisM wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both punitive and compensatory/reparation measures habevtgeir place.

It's a matter of proportionality. A punishment that is the economic equivalent of the destruction of a small city is proportional to something on the order of mass murder, not the prominence of certain information on a company's web page.

If a company creates damages exceeding billions of dollars, it's quite obvious that they should receive penalty worth billions of dollars.

That's basic proportionality.

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

#664

Post by ModernMech »

dataflow wrote: post #614
shawabawa3 wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 chang…

> A web browser isn't an essential part of a desktop OS

That's so 1997. I would argue that a desktop OS isn't essential to my web browser. All I want my phone or my desktop computer for is to browse the web (not me but that's true for the vast majority of people). All this nonsense that comes with the OS is peripheral. Not essential. The only thing my phone or desktop needs to do is turn on, connect to the web, and download facebook.com and any other website I want. That's it. That's essential. Network card: essential. Web browser: essential. Any so-called computer without a network card is as good as a brick to me.

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

#665

Post by beerlord »

gowld wrote: post #648
r_singh wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Android is free to license. Google makes money from the Android users who then use Search, Gmail, Maps etc. since they are bundled with the phone.

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

#666

Post by Dylan16807 »

cmsj wrote: post #630
chmod775 wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just factually wrong. Android is a separate software project that is developed separately from Google Play Services. The Android OS works perfectly without those installed. There's no "Chrome, Google Search, and the Google Play Store" in the Android repository. Especially since Android is open source, and most of the latter APKs are not. I suggest to actually have a look at the a android project before making…

Android the project is open source and lacks those apps, but Android the consumer branded product without those apps is not very appealing to customers.

I doubt that. Play store and maps are important. Having a specific browser and search, on top of hangouts, google+, slides, photos... not so important.

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

#667

Post by r_singh »

vamc19 wrote: post #406
r_singh wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for this. Anyone who has tried to compile a forked version of AOSP knows that Google makes it extremely hard to do so. Android being an open source OS is nowhere near as easy to install as a regular linux open source OS. I've been trying to get my own android / androidTV box working on popular hardware like rPi and other Amlogic, Allwinner, Mali based boards without much success. Even devices manufacturers hav…

I'm not buying your first point. Within a month of OEMs releasing the Kernel sources, you can find builds of AOSP over at XDA, Lineage OS and other forums. And with the project Trebble in P, we have builds within a week. I don't think it is hard or Google is making it hard to compile. As for your problems installing it on other boards, where are the drivers for them? Your classic desktop installation comes with drive…

You’re right, those two projects are successful at compiling AOSP.

Trying to get the xda builds and LinageOS working properly is subjectively speak—difficult and heavily device dependent.

I’m not sure about x86 images, but arm are heavily device dependent.

Would love be proved wrong. I’m looking for android images actively.

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

#668

Post by reitanqild »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #574
DenisM wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is whether manufacturers had a choice, and the problem is that they did not because monopoly. Massive fines discourage monopolistic behavior, if nothing else.

> Massive fines discourage monopolistic behavior, if nothing else. The problem is businesses may take it as a signal that the EU is against foreign businesses rather than against monopolistic practices, in which case the thing being deterred is doing business in the EU rather than monopolistic practices. To show otherwise they would have to levy equally large fines against local businesses engaged in the same sort of…

You do understand that nobody, including politicians and FF users want to remove Chrome, Edge or Safari?

You do understand that doing that would probably cost those companies (and everyone else) a lot more?

We only want a level playing field. Giving companies a real fine is just a way to make sure the board and the shareholders actually gets the message ;-)

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

#669

Post by ocdtrekkie »

lloydde wrote: post #653
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What Chrome also did far better than everyone else was a user local install, ie an install that didn’t require admin on the PC. Shadow IT installs was a huge advantage over Firefox in Chrome’s first years.

I still have to fight this occasionally. :| In one instance, I ended up just telling the antivirus software at a company to flag Chrome as a virus and block it from executing. Software installation requiring admin rights is by design, and circumventing it is unethical as heck.

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

#670

Post by wstrange »

One wonders if the unintended consequence of this ruling is to further diminish competition in the smartphone space down to Apple and Google.

Google is clearly getting in to the smartphone manufacturing business with Pixel phones and their acquihire of HTC engineers.

Outside of HN, most consumers want the integrated experience offered by Apple and the default Google apps. You see this with Samsung - where consumers like the hardware but are not super keen on Samsung Apps.

The easiest way to get that integrated experience is to buy an Apple or Google device.

Post reply on HN