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

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

#731

Post by VikingCoder » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

pertymcpert wrote: post #654

VikingCoder wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So to be clear, IF Google had manufactured all of the phones themselves, and had never open sourced Android, then they could have kept Chrome and Search on Android, and there would have been no problem, right? But because Google let other people manufacture Androids, and because Google open sourced Android, now it's a problem? The logic of this is just baffling to me.

Google didn't write all of Android, there are GPL components. They didn't have the choice to keep it closed source, all of it anyway. And secondly, they're not being punished for having an open source operating system. They're being punished for forcing manufacturers to install their suite of software (simplified). It's not because they open sourced Android. I repeat, it's NOT BECAUSE THEY OPEN SOURCED ANDROID.

Google could absolutely close-source enough of Android to make it essentially closed.

As I posted elsewhere:

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

#732

Post by ehsankia » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

lucb1e wrote: post #228

theBobBob wrote: post #103

Very slightly off topic but I actually think how Android handles default apps is the best of both worlds. It comes with very very good default Google Apps that work well together but it is very easy to switch out whatever you want for an alternative. How iOS handles it is the opposite. For their default apps they either straight out not allow competitors, severely limit what their competitors or (if I remember correc…

> but it is very easy to switch out whatever you want for an alternative Do tell how one could switch out the map from Google Maps to anything else (Bing, OpenStreetMap, whatever). Or how I could get rid of Google+ without needing to wipe my device or use a zero-day. Or perhaps how I could get apk files from their repository without agreeing to the Google TOS and privacy policy, and without using some hacky system li…

> how one could switch out the map from Google Maps

Just install another maps app and set it as default? And just because Bing and Apple haven't created Android apps doesn't mean it's Google's fault.

> Or how I could get rid of Google+ without needing to wipe my device or use a zero-day.

Most phone these days don't even come with Google+, and if they do, no one is forcing you to login. You can disable it entirely.

> how I could get apk files from their repository without agreeing to the Google TOS and privacy policy

Doesn't that apply to almost any software with a license?

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

#733

Post by DannyBee » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

sah2ed wrote: post #712

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…

> 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…

"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]."

This is actually not why it was done (I was there :P), and didn't really factor very much into the calculation at all. So your perspective, while interesting, was not the one used.

In fact, the business folks mostly thought it would be a downside (given all the FUD/etc around the time period).

Your perspective is also interesting because Apple did not go this route and still were wildly successful. So i disagree it "had to be open source or it would not have taken off". I'd like to believe that (really!), but there is an existence proof that this was not true (Apple), and in the end, i just can't bring myself to think what you say is true.

It was open because Andy thought it was best for the world (really. I realize how cliche that sounds, but if you've ever met the guy, you'd realize it was true. He gave pretty much not a shit about the business side of it, it's not what he enjoyed).

As mentioned, the business folks argued that this model would just lead to a shitty experience (among other things) over time. (This was pre-iphone, so apple was not a consideration at the time).

The compromise was "great, let's figure out how we can make sure that doesn't happen through branding guidelines/etc".

Later, after Apple was successful, the business folks all said "look, this model was a mistake, look at Apple". You could still push back and say "we are doing fine".

I don't see how, in the future, the business folks don't win every argument here.

Apple's model is giving them all the money, with none of the downsides.

This seems like a "business school case study" they would teach in the future.

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

#734

Post by dep_b » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:52 PM UTC

Google should offer a kickback service. "Install our stuff on your phone and receive $50 back on your purchase!". Or just use Android without the preinstalled spyware _but_ with all of the API's that had been moved to Play Services.

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

#735

Post by propman » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:54 PM UTC

So Microsoft is out of the phone business and basically the browser business. That’s the 3rd major phone OS. The rest are Chinese and there’s a huge cultural gap for them to become competitive in Europe. Google may have stifled OS competition, but that’s a lot more difficult market to crack than hardware competition for which google provided a huge opportunity for. It’s a lot easier making a phone that you know billions of users know the OS interface for.

If I was Google, I’d use this as a perfect PR opportunity to switch gears and start charging $250 per phone for licensing Android and then offer $50 per phone to put all Google related apps on their for a net gain of $200 a phone plus their previous market share. Chrome, Google, Android are too deeply infiltrated to even effect a single percent of sales to a new OS competitor.

Then slowly eat away at the competition by producing Pixel and related models which you can beat the competition for lower and mid phones by jacking up android licensing as you eat away at the market. End result, EU users pay hundreds of more per each phone and Hardware companies die off. Apple could also further jack up their phone prices.

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

#736

Post by josteink » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:54 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.

They paid to have it bundled as a drive-by install in other popular software, spyware-style.

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

#737

Post by josteink » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

codedokode wrote: post #698

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…

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

Often with a link to download Chrome saying misleading stuff like “Upgrade your browser. Click here”.

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

#738

Post by DaiPlusPlus » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 6:00 PM UTC

sjy wrote: post #184

theBobBob wrote: post #103

Very slightly off topic but I actually think how Android handles default apps is the best of both worlds. It comes with very very good default Google Apps that work well together but it is very easy to switch out whatever you want for an alternative. How iOS handles it is the opposite. For their default apps they either straight out not allow competitors, severely limit what their competitors or (if I remember correc…

> I know that anti-trust laws are probably not applicable as Apple does have a dominant position based on total market share It's an interesting question though, because it depends on which 'market' you're talking about. This is a vexed question in antitrust law [1]. There is some pending litigation in the United States as to whether Apple illegally monopolized the market for iPhone apps [2], but it's been brought by…

It would be perverse if the court ordered Apple to modify iOS to support third-party app-stores. I see it as the same situation as video game console licensing: all games for the Xbox, PS and Nintendo must be approved by the platform owner and they take a cut from all sales.

The "happy medium" we have today: where jailbreaking was found to be not illegal, works for as long as we can jailbreak. I note that iOS does now allow sideloaded apps too, though they still must run in the sandbox, but it does mean you can distribute an app that wouldn't be approved for the App Store.

The EU had another workaround: impose a higher import tariff on video game consoles than general-purpose computers. Sony released a Linux kit for the PS2 so they could say the PS2 was a general-purpose computer, not a console. I think it worked initially but because hardly anyone bought the Linux kit (it wasn't sold at retail with the console) the customs people took a look and Sony had to start paying higher tariffs.

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

#739

Post by kajecounterhack » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 6:03 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #717

beerlord wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Andr…

> It’s essentially a bait and switch, which is why I believe Google deserves that fine.

Seems like you're projecting your own expectations onto what Google has really been selling all along. Google doesn't advertise Android as "free as in freedom." OEMs comply with their conditions. It's how it works.

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

#740

Post by codedokode » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 6:04 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #729

codedokode wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I am sorry if I didn't write it clearly. What I wanted to say is that Google required phone manufacturers not to make agreements with Google's competitors (e.g. not to preinstall competitors's apps or search engine as default) as a condition for obtaining a license for Google Play Services or Google Play. And this is bad for competition in mobile software market and bad for consumers. Instead Google should just sell their software to manufacturers without such conditions.

For example, several years ago a Russian software company, Yandex, wanted to make its own build of Android with Yandex browser and Yandex app store. But after they have talked to smartphone vendors, they learned that in order to obtain licenses for Google software the vendors have signed an agreement with Google forbidding them to make phones with alternative ROMs or replace Google software with competitors' software [1].

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/google-reaches-7-8-million...