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

691–700 of 975 posts

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

#691

Post by praseodym »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #669
lloydde wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you rely on the lack of admin rights to prevent unauthorised software from being run you’re doing it wrong. You should be using whitelisting (e.g. AppLocker in Windows) which also prevents “portable” applications (without an installer) from being used.

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

#692

Post by mpweiher »

nojvek wrote: post #569
maym86 wrote: post #495

This is a case of breaking a law where there was clear precedent set by the Microsoft case. Google decided it could get away with it or the cost was worth it. I'm glad the EU stands up to monopolistic practices and doesn't capitulate like in the US. Without large companies suppressing competition who knows how many other choices and products we would have?

Whatever we say about the EU, it seems they’re keeping US companies in check. Sure GDPR is vague and had Edge cases, but it’s been a huge boon to the world. Thank you EU.

> keeping US companies in check

Also keeping EU companies in check :-)

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

#693

Post by cmsj »

nemothekid wrote: post #547
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, to force users to iTunes, and if they didn't then no iPhones on that carriers network. Doesn't Apple already do this with the App Store? You can't buy an iPhone with Spotify pre-installed and Apple Music can leverage its position of not having to give another company a 30% cut to undercut spotify's prices.

Correct, but Apple doesn't have an overwhelming market majority, so under antitrust laws it isn't capable of inhibiting competition.

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

#694

Post by DannyBee »

The net outcome of this decision will be that nobody will create significant open platforms of this type anymore, because once you are successful you will no longer be able to have any control over the experience. Someone will always be able to find a market that you are hurting.

If you actually read the decision that's essentially their underlying complaint. They dress it up in terms about search market blah blah blah, but in the end it's really about whether Google is allowed to control the experience of Android phones that want to use the Google apps and app store or not. Android being open at all was already a fight inside Google, this decision will essentially make it impossible for anybody win that fight in the future. I can't see why anyone would risk making an open platform again. Success only has downsides versus Apple's model. I expect the next major player here will either sell the operating system or sell the phones, and keep the other stuff closed

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

#695

Post by IanCal »

repolfx wrote: post #66
hrktb wrote: post #33

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…

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.

It does have a dominant market position though, and that's what's in the legal stuff that they're being fined under. You do not need a complete monopoly to have a dominant market position.

> 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.

More than that though, they effectively stopped device manufactures from selling these (because of exclusivity agreements), and a lack of range isn't going to have helped amazon:

> For example, the Commission has found evidence that Google's conduct prevented a number of large manufacturers from developing and selling devices based on Amazon's Android fork called "Fire OS".

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm

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

#696

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

zaroth wrote: post #457
blub wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android experience". They manifestly have a profound connection with each other." Google has worked very hard to integrate their app suite at such a deep level with Android to the point that they can steer what can be done with the OS just by using that one lever. Anyone paying attention in the past decade will remember plenty of complaints about the GApps i…

Can you think of any technical advantages why Google would do this? Any functionality that becomes possible when the full suite of apps and APIs and services are all present together at once on the phone?

I honestly think that it was a reaction to update issues. The more of the OS which is updateable by Google, the easier it is to patch these. Additionally, i remember people saying at the time that it made it much easier to incrementally add features to Android between major releases.

I don't really mind about the Google Play Services thing (as it probably benefited people overall), but the contracts with OEM's were always wack, and I'm pretty happy that the EU has (eventually) fined them for this literally textbook anti-EU competition law behaviour.

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

#697

Post by codedokode »

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.

Mozilla probably doesn't have so much money to pay for installing their browser.

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

#698

Post by codedokode »

dmix wrote: post #540
joering2 wrote: post #513

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…

Google also showed a warning about an unsupported browser when Google Documents were used with other browser like Opera.

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

#699

Post by codedokode »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #567
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…

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…

Chrome was also offered when downloading Adobe Flash and as I remember it was often bundled with various free software.

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

#700

Post by cmsj »

hesarenu wrote: post #629
cmsj wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samsung phones are very often dinged in reviews because they ship a confusing mix of Samsung apps that duplicate the functionality of Google apps. I wouldn't be very surprised at all if Samsung would prefer to just ship their Calendar/whatever app, or even entire phones that only contain their apps/services, but they can't make those choices. Regarding the 75%, please bear in mind that that is across the total market…

So what you saying "one example - if you want to use Google services on one Android phone, you can't make a second Android phone that uses your own services" is wrong then? Does anyone know what the contracts contain?

No, it's not wrong. Samsung is allowed to add its own Calendar/Calculator/whatever apps, and their own App Store, but they are not allowed to remove Google's ones without dropping every non-AOSP Google app/service from every one of their android phones.
Post reply on HN