Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 121 posts

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#71

Post by thesimon »

u_me_him wrote: post #56
epalmer wrote: post #53

In the US here. I just went from being an iphone user of long standing to a android user mostly because I want google apps over at least iphone apps. Especially the map apps. I did install firefox asap on my nexus 6p but I use chrome and firefox both. I love the bundle. I was happy with the iphone bundle but I did not love it. My youngest daughter is very happy I came over to the darkside. She has been an Android use…

You can get all the google apps in the iphone

But you can't set Google Maps as the default map application or Chrome as the default browser. In fact, Chrome is basically only a nice wrapper around Safaris engine.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#72

Post by scholia »

kyrra wrote: post #29
wnevets wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>. The problem isn't the OS itself, it is the Play Store hegemony and the fact you cannot reasonably ship an Android phone without it - nobody would buy it. isn't this what amazon does?

While the Fire Phone may not have done well, all the Amazon Fire products are Android based. This includes the Fire Phone, Fire Tablets, and Fire TV.

> all the Amazon Fire products are Android based

They are based on AOSP, but Amazon is expressly forbidden from using the Android name, and it can't use the Play store, so it's not really in the Android (TM) market.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#73

Post by wnevets »

scholia wrote: post #72
kyrra wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the Fire Phone may not have done well, all the Amazon Fire products are Android based. This includes the Fire Phone, Fire Tablets, and Fire TV.

> all the Amazon Fire products are Android based They are based on AOSP, but Amazon is expressly forbidden from using the Android name, and it can't use the Play store, so it's not really in the Android (TM) market.

>but Amazon is expressly forbidden from using the Android name

source?

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#74

Post by scholia »

tdkl wrote: post #64
ricw wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is the monopoly that Google has obtained in Europe with more than 80% market share. Similar to how Microsoft was fined for making the internet explorer the default on their platform and thereby dominating the market (windows) a decade ago, Google is likely going to be fined and forced to open their monopolistic platform to fairer competition. The thinking behind this is that you can't have terms that p…

Except you can disable all that on Android and use other services/apps. It's also debatable if Android gained that market share because of this alleged forcing of their apps/services. I bet people chose Android because of price (Apple being a pricey alternative), more free apps/sideloading ability and they actually wanted tighter integration with Google services (fucking surprise). The MS situation was similar in cas…

> MS made it very unclear to disable/remove IE

Microsoft had already signed a consent decree with Janet Reno's DoJ. This specifically allowed Microsoft to add features to the operating system. In effect, it didn't have a choice about building IE into the OS. (1)

The later anti-trust case was based on the idea of tying (forcing someone who wants one product to have a second product as well). Microsoft said IE was integrated, not tied, while the DoJ said it was tied. (Microsoft eventually won that one 2-1 on appeal.)

> It's just an EU money grab (am EU citizen and only use Chrome).

Less of a money grab than the EU fining Microsoft big bucks for bundling Windows Media Player, and forcing it to offer versions of Windows without it. (The EU refused Microsoft's offer to bundle three media players with Windows.)

(1) Microsoft also componentized IE so that different programs -- including third-party programs -- could use components from IE. This wasn't such a bad idea at the time, before the browser became the main focus for malware attacks and we wanted it sandboxed.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#75

Post by patrickaljord »

kyrra wrote: post #32
NiKMic wrote: post #18

I'm not sure if I am understanding it well. Does the EU have an issue with Google Chrome coming pre-installed with Android? In that case, shouldn't Microsoft face the same penalties since IE/Edge comes pre-installed on the Windows OS? I believe that these pre-installed apps can't be uninstalled (because it might happen that you end up with no browsers on your phone), but would making the app uninstallable solve this…

Details are in the EU's press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm The key points: > requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's 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; > preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing op…

> requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's 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;

Google gives away Android for free. If it can't put google search and ads on it, it won't be able to make money to keep funding Android. Banning Google Search from Android will cut its funding, not sure it would be such a smart move...

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#76

Post by scholia »

wnevets wrote: post #73
scholia wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all the Amazon Fire products are Android based They are based on AOSP, but Amazon is expressly forbidden from using the Android name, and it can't use the Play store, so it's not really in the Android (TM) market.

>but Amazon is expressly forbidden from using the Android name source?

While the documentation itself is available to you under the Apache 2.0 license, note that proprietary trademarks and brand features are not included in that license. Google's trademarks and other brand features (including the Android stylized typeface logo) are not included in the license. https://source.android.com/license.html

Android is a proprietary trademark wholly owned by Google.

See also: Leverage over manufacturers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29...

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#77

Post by EvanPlaice »

thesimon wrote: post #71
u_me_him wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get all the google apps in the iphone

But you can't set Google Maps as the default map application or Chrome as the default browser. In fact, Chrome is basically only a nice wrapper around Safaris engine.

Chrome on IOS uses Webkit, it's basically a skin over Apple's outdated browser engine that crashes frequently. This is due to Apple Store restrictions, not technical reasons.

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#78

Post by scholia »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #10
jbob2000 wrote: post #4

Totally implausible scenario, but what would happen if Google were to say "to hell with this" and just completely pull out of the EU? Like full-stop, nothing Google touching the EU. Would there be riots? Would governments try to force Google back? Like, are they so essential to digital life that a complete withdrawal would cause some amount of chaos? And if that's the case, isn't an antitrust suit a bit disingenuous?…

That also raises additional questions: there's a process and a set of rules for enforcing such a ruling against a company that a government actually has jurisdiction over (and thus must follow all the operational rules of a "native" company), and a different process and different rules for deciding that an entirely foreign company (with no nexus in the jurisdiction to enforce against) has acted so egregiously that th…

I don't think the EU is too worried about that. It has already imposed very large fines on both Intel and Microsoft, for example.

Like them, Google has lots of staff and offices throughout the EU.... although (not uniquely) it uses various methods to avoid paying taxes ;-)

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#79

Post by turaw »

Just digging through the fact sheet released by the European Commission [1] to gain a more concrete understanding of what the investigation is trying to turn up. Quotes are heavily edited; please read the full document before forming opinions :3

Licensing of Google’s proprietary apps:

The Commission seeks to ensure that manufacturers are free to choose which apps they pre-install on their devices.

Anti-fragmentation:

The Commission has found evidence that Google's conduct prevented manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices based on a competing Android fork ... In doing so, Google has also closed off an important way for its competitors to introduce apps and services, in particular general search services, which could be pre-installed on Android forks.

Exclusivity:

The Commission takes issue not with [financial incentives to ... smartphone and tablet manufacturers ... on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search] in general but with the conditions associated with Google's financial incentives, in particular with the condition that the financial incentive is not paid if any other search provider than Google Search is pre-installed on smart mobile devices.

[1]: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm

Re: EU hits Google with second antitrust charge

#80

Post by [deleted] »

EvanPlaice wrote: post #77
thesimon wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can't set Google Maps as the default map application or Chrome as the default browser. In fact, Chrome is basically only a nice wrapper around Safaris engine.

Chrome on IOS uses Webkit, it's basically a skin over Apple's outdated browser engine that crashes frequently. This is due to Apple Store restrictions, not technical reasons.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN