European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case • Hacker News Board

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

#681

Post by beerlord » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #644

antr wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would argue that its actually pro-consumer - because if I was Google's CEO, I would just shut down AOSP, and wish that I had done it years ago, in relation to this ruling.

Google supports AOSP and has done so for years, making it available freely. Why shouldn't they be able to dictate their own terms? If phone makers don't like it, they can make their own OS (which they have - and they all suck).

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

#682

Post by VikingCoder » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

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.

Couldn't Google have had Samsung OEM phones?

With co-branding?

And all of the profits going to Samsung?

This would merely be a different way to structure access to Android, right? Android is closed source, but literally everything else is the same...

Except now it's not "anti-competitive," because the phone manufacturers are not "competitors" to Google.

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

#683

Post by ocdtrekkie » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #678

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They fixed this with Windows 10, actually. Which of course, upset people because it defaults people to Edge, and asks people to give Edge a try when they change it.

True, I remember seeing that now on my moms laptop. I remember it was quite aggressive in warning you not to switch away from Edge. Microsoft can never let the marketing people stop having control and ruining their products. They are trying to make it more useable and user friendlier, but it's funny seeing the push back within the product.

I've recently said that Microsoft is the most self-defeating company in history. They often take all of the goodwill they've earned, and then torch it on minor battles that aren't really making them any money. If someone's gotten into the settings screen to change their default, they probably have tried Edge, or at least know what it is and have some reason for switching.

Windows 10 telemetry is a great example: They shot themselves in the foot PR-wise on an otherwise excellent operating system, chasing a pile of metadata that won't really be significantly more useful than what they get from people who voluntarily agree to be Windows Insiders. There isn't a good business case for preventing people from shutting off error reporting, and it's had a huge impact on mitigating all of their other efforts to repair their image.

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

#684

Post by rjmunro » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 4:38 PM UTC

vivan wrote: post #2

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?

iOS is much worse. You aren't even allowed to install another browser. "Chrome" and "Firefox" on iOS are not real Chrome and Firefox, they are wrappers around Safari's webkit engine.

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

#685

Post by beerlord » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

cornholio wrote: post #372

xg15 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the "certain Google proprietary apps" most importantly contain the Play store. Yes, in theory you could install FDroid - however if you, as a manufacturer, don't want to break the "install our app" flows of basically every website, you need the Play store - and therefore you also need to install Chrome, default Google Search and never sell a phone with Lineage OS installed ever again. Not sur…

The margins of the Play Store are huge and it's quite easy to disrupt with a copy cat - the developers will flock to an alternative store with similar functionality and 2% fees. And of course customers . The Play store is the crown jewel and protecting that massive revenue stream is paramount, it could well become the most important software market in the world.

So a copycat needs:

-Developers -Customers -To be able to survive on fees less than it costs for a credit card transaction -To be installed on something better than Android

And you call all this easy? ;-)

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

#686

Post by thejake0 » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

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.

Microsoft faced a very similar situation, but Windows was never open sourced.

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

#687

Post by bepotts » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

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.

Its largest shareholders are all American, they were founded in America, by Americans, headquartered in America, and almost all it's employees live in America and are American.

My guess is that Google considers itself American.

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

#688

Post by tjelen » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 4:43 PM UTC

beerlord wrote: post #672

pdw wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Wikipedia: In their Statement of Objections, the European Commission accused Google of the breach of EU antitrust rules in three ways: - by requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps; - by preventing manufacturers from selling sma…

Google have left themselves open to this. 1. They should release a heavily locked-down version of Android, which manufacturers and carriers cannot modify - apart from basics like bundled apps, widgets and wallpapers (uninstallable). Update would come direct from Google, and hardware support would be limited to specific components. 2. Make all of Android closed source and shut down AOSP. What is the point of it anyway…

Re 1: Isn't Android One that version?

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

#689

Post by Kocrachon » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 4:44 PM UTC

This is a bit over my head. How does this apply to Google but not Apple? Don't they do the exact same thing? One of the arguments I saw was Google pushed its own market over others. But Apple makes it so you can't use any other market period. So I'm confused...

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

#690

Post by codedokode » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 4:46 PM UTC

beerlord wrote: post #659

bunderbunder wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Android already has a problem with fragmentation, which becomes a problem for customers when their phone becomes vulnerable due to a lack of security patches. 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 wro…

Those Chinese phone manufacturers often use Google Services without a license. So what Google does doesn't change anything for them. Also, Google's agreements do not prevent vendors from installing malware as long it is not competing with Google apps.