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

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

#721

Post by jpalomaki » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:32 PM UTC

joering2 wrote: post #513

philipodonnell wrote: post #451

Earlier 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.

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.

Chrome was the choice of many people who really know their tools. It was fast and put the content on front instead of itself.

I don’t think we should dismis doing what customers want and try to find reasons for succes only from marketing.

With Chrome Google kind of repeated what they did with search.

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

#722

Post by csydas » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:34 PM UTC

ModernMech wrote: post #664

dataflow wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 d…

I believe that this does not really address what "essential" means in this argument, and I find you're both arguing the same point but semantically disagreeing.

The idea of a Web Browser being "essential" to an OS is to mean that the OS itself would not be complete without this specific browser, which is in fact not true. Whatever combination of OS + browser you elect to use, or of you eschew the common OS parts in favor of it being entirely browser based is your choice.

That is the contention when Google, and also when Microsoft, try to claim that their respective browsers are essential to their OSes. (Before anyone tries to call me out, yes, Apple is just as silly with iOS, but at least they attempt to have some very fragile ground to stand on regarding performance)

So the argument isn't that a web browser isn't essential to modern day computing, it's that the OS itself does not need a built in one to be complete, or any specific browser to realize its goal of being an OS.

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

#723

Post by ihsw2 » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:36 PM UTC

r_singh wrote: post #224

ensiferum wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android is only open in theory, closed in practice.

AOSP does not include proprietary apps like the Play Store, etc. In order for device manufacturers to get the Play Store on their phone, they have to give in to Google's demands to add the Google search box on the home screen of the phones. Apart from this, Qualcomm doesn't release open source drivers for GPUs etc, making it even harder to use pure AOSP on flagship devices.

> In order for device manufacturers to get the Play Store on their phone, they have to give in to Google's demands to add the Google search box on the home screen of the phones.

What's wrong with this? The Play Store is subsidized by search revenue, it makes sense to tie them together.

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

#724

Post by DannyBee » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:40 PM UTC

LolNoGenerics wrote: post #701

DannyBee wrote: post #694

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 bl…

So I can create an open platform and control how it is used? That doesn't make sense.

Err, no, they controlled only the people who chose to use their apps or play store. That's still open, you can do whatever you want, it's just if you want their stuff, you play by their rules.

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

#725

Post by ehsankia » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:40 PM UTC

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.

Exactly. Google isn't blocking other browsers, so the analogy is flawed. Apple is forcing iTunes to be pre-installed, so they are using their dominance on the iPhone to push many other services.

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

#726

Post by josteink » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:42 PM UTC

cptskippy wrote: post #649

theptip wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP didn't make the claim that the "product only succeeded because Google pushed it hard". All they said was that Google used their search monopoly to give it a big advantage. Chrome's quality was a necessary, but probably not sufficient condition for it to gain the market traction that it did.

Exactly, without Search pushing so hard the adoption rate would have been much slower and would have given Mozilla, Apple, and Microsoft time to respond. Firefox has rapidly improved since it's inception and was rapidly stealing IE market share prior to Chrome. Had Chrome not been rammed down people's throats then we might have a more even landscape than we do today.

Search. And Gmail. And YouTube. And every other google-controlled site on the internet.

Plus email-SPAM(!!!) about installing Chrome when you signed in to your Google-account on a new computer using a non-Chrome browser.

It also used dubious wording: “You need to upgrade your browser. Click here”

And paying to have it bundled as a drive-by installation with other software.

And Chrome-only websites. And the list just goes on and on.

It was spyware tactics + SPAM all over the place. And the sheer amount of it was mind-blowing.

Even technical people who explicitly didn’t want Chrome had a hard time avoiding it. Imagine the effect on regular, non-technical users.

Saying it was all down to technical merit is just appoligist and delusional.

With Chrome’s dominance and semi-monoculture undeniably in place, Google is now using that position to force new things, like subverting open web-standards with DRM.

I can’t believe people are so non-chalantly allowing this to happen.

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

#727

Post by GeekyBear » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

joering2 wrote: post #716

GeekyBear wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From an antitrust law point of view, using your monopoly status in one area as a weapon against the competition in other areas is something that likely gets you in trouble.

Although, it helps to remember that in the EU, you don't need nearly as big a market share before their competition law kicks in and places restrictions on your behavior, so things that you can still get away with in the US can be quite illegal in the EU.

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

#728

Post by ehsankia » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:44 PM UTC

lucb1e wrote: post #460

makomk wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You switch out the map app like this, same way you change the default app for anything else: https://360.here.com/2015/01/29/swap-google-maps-here-androi... (The instructions for switching to, say, Google's own Waze app are pretty much the same too.) This is as I understand it not possible on Apple's iOS; even if you install a third-party mapping application, everything else on the system which opens up a map will st…

That's a location picker. I'm talking about the map view on which applications show you things, such as live views of all trains in the country or something. And this is just one example, there are a hundred more things that are in the proprietary google suite, without which you'll be able to install only a few of the apps available for the platform.

Hmm, those are the specific apps using Google Maps API. That's like saying why does HackerNews use jQuery, I want it to use lodash. (I don't know if they do, just an example).

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

#729

Post by DannyBee » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:44 PM UTC

codedokode wrote: post #705

DannyBee wrote: post #694

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 bl…

I cannot agree. The main problem is that Google has proprietary Google Play Services and instead of just selling it Google sets additional terms that prevent competition, like preinstalling competitors' search engines, or competitors' software. It is difficult to earn large profits in a competing market; but this is benefecial for consumers and their interests should be put before Google's.

I'm really unsure what your first sentence about the main problem is supposed to mean, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to me as written, so i'm having trouble responding.

Would you mind rephrasing it a bit, and i'd be happy to try to respond?

I can't see why anyone would ever not follow Apple's model. It effectively immunizes them from antitrust concerns due to low market share, but they still make an ungodly amount of money.

What does Google's model buy them, precisely?

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

#730

Post by codedokode » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:45 PM UTC

atomi wrote: post #581

endorphone wrote: post #286

This is a dangerous ruling that pushes the world further into the potential for trade wars by proxy. Contrary to numerous posts- -no, the law isn't "clear". This is an incredibly nuanced situation, and the notion that Google was just overtly flouting (ed: thx sjcsjc) the law is outright nonsense. Google has a huge litany of bad practices (I personally recently switched my daily driver to an iPhone for that reason), b…

Google will start charging phone manufacturers to use Android on their devices. And they'll pass that on to consumers. The EU will get their check.

Android is free; Google Play Services and Google Play are proprietary Google software and they can be replaced, for example, with F-Droid store or Yandex store.