European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

Post by paulie_a » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 6:05 PM UTC

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.

Post by lagadu » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 6:07 PM UTC

beerlord wrote: post #659

bunderbunder wrote: post #557

Earlier 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…

Post by anon12341234 » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 6:10 PM UTC

codedokode wrote: post #730

atomi wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by bad_user » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 6:12 PM UTC

kajecounterhack wrote: post #739

bad_user wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by laumars » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 6:13 PM UTC

beerlord wrote: post #676

laumars wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There used to be a plethora of mobile platforms: * Symbian * Palm webOS * Mozilla (I think that was also called WebOS?) * Jola * Some blackberry thing based on QNX that "supported" Android apps * Tizan * Windows Phone * Ubuntu Phone Plus a bunch of independent / hobby(?) ones that never really took off, eg the Inferno port These days it feels like most people have given up trying to compete against Apple and Google.

Because consumers and developers do not want to support more than two operating systems. Even Windows failed with Windows Mobile. The up and comer is KaiOS, used on super low-end phones in India. Its a version of the Firefox OS.