Now Google is paying a Twitter ad campaign to save their reputation (under the hashtag #androidworks), they have no shame.
European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
711–720 of 975 posts
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#712The 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 bl…
> 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.
It was a calculated risk that had a handsome payoff, if it worked, which is why it had to be open source, anything short of open source and Android would never have taken off like it did with several handset manufacturers via the OHA [0].
Remember, the context surrounding the need for Android to use an open source model at launch was that they were the underdog, iOS was still nascent but steadily gaining serious market share. The incumbents -- whom Google was hoping to disrupt using the OHA as a trojan horse was Nokia (they enjoyed 73% market share [1] with their Symbian "smartphone" OS) and Blackberry. Nokia would eventually start the process to make Symbian fully open source in 2008 [2], so they could compete better against the OHA [3], but the process didn't complete until 2010[4], which by then was already too late.
IOW, making Android open source was a core part of Google's strategic play to gain market share, there is no point in crying uncle.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian#Market_share_and_compe...
[2] https://techcrunch.com/2008/06/24/symbian-goes-open-source-c...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian_Foundation
[4] https://www.wired.com/2010/02/symbian-operating-system-now-o...
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#713Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's read the law: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... >Article 102 >Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. >Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: >b) limiting production, markets or techni…
How is that not clearly breaching d? They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android experience" (Google experience, whatever -- the thing that most consumers think of when they consider Android). They manifestly have a profound connection with each other. And let's be clear here lest there be any confusion -- zero customers want a vendor to do anything different, and the only reason some vendors w…
> why does my BMW have a BMW entertainment system?
BMW is the manufacturer, not a licensor, so it's a slightly different scenario, but let's say that dealers are somewhat equivalent to manufacturers. You raise a good question or two:
1. Does BMW forbid dealers from replacing the factory entertainment system with an Alpine system? Or do they just assume nobody will, since it's already bundled in the car?
2. What is BMW's share of the automobile market? (i.e. how close to a monopoly are they?)
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#714Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also Internet Explorer. This case seems almost a mirror of MS except in the phone space instead of PC. Only difference is that when the issue came up in Congress, MS was confrontational with regulators and Google cut some fat checks.
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.
The EU also required Microsoft to create the N editions, that came without the media player installed by default. I recall reading that very few copies were sold but I can't find a citation right now.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#715Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is always an interesting problem of definition and separation. If all the things google claims are absolutely essential and inseparable as part of 'Android' the license could well be interpreted as requiring them to open source all of it. If, on the other hand, these are all separate pieces of software and not totally dependent to deliver the end 'experience' then that contradicts some of Google's legal argument…
Has Google actually claimed the kernel is "essential and inseparable", or did they just do that wrt the closed-source Google apps, though?
I don't consider that part up to Google's discretion. It simply doesn't function without the kernel. The question is whether the Google apps are also essential and inseparable which would tie them to the kernel as part of a derivative work (according to this interpretation which may or may not hold up in court).
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#716Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'd say that sneaking an install of your product onto people's computers when they are not expecting it is exploiting a dark pattern. However, the point was that Chrome didn't mysteriously gain market share solely based on some sort of technical superiority. Google paid to gain market share with the sorts of clueless users who click next during install wizards without reading anything.
My point was Google didn't pay anything to gain the market share because they advertise Chrome on their frontpage, something neither Firefox, nor IE, nor Opera nor Safari, nor anyone else in that matter could do.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#717Earlier 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…
You’re talking of the eternal tension between security and freedom.
No, I don’t think that reducing choice and locking them in Google’s ecosystem is pro-consumer, even if done for the right reasons.
Let’s remember that Android was welcomed by many of us as a free (as in freedom) alternative to iOS.
If you want a locked-down, secure and polished OS, then Apple’s iOS is far better at this game. The only reason why Android is dominating the market right now is because it gave freedom to users and freedom to phone makers. And Google dialing that freedom down after becoming so popular is anti-competitive.
It’s essentially a bait and switch, which is why I believe Google deserves that fine.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#718Earlier quoted context omitted.
no, the law isn't "clear" Well , judges had a look and decided it was
No, this is a decision by political appointees. I assume judges might have a look if Google goes the court.
True - not judges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#719Earlier 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.
Again, they can be ‘open’ (sell/give to other OEMs), they just can’t use contracts to force those OEMs to help them dominate other markets/kill Android competition.
That’s what they’re doing here, just like MS did in the 90s with Windows licenses.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#720Earlier 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
> How is a web browser not an essential part of a desktop OS. MS argued that the specific web browser IE was essential and I think that's the type of argument that is problematic, both for MS and Google
Not just essential -- atomic. Inseparable.