European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

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

endorphone wrote: post #562

wongarsu wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mixing and matching, for the vast majority of users, is neither practical or expected, and absolutely negatively impacts the brand. Microsoft should be delighted then that they can force Internet Explorer on everyone again. > They are clearly related as a suite of applications which form the core experience of what is called “Android”. That argument doesn't hold for Chrome. The core experience of Android is the AOS…

Microsoft should be delighted then that they can force Internet Explorer on everyone again. Microsoft does force Internet Explorer cum Edge on everyone. They never stopped. When the EU forced them to offer a trivial "justify a giant fine" selection tool it did essentially nothing in regards to browser share. It keeps getting cited as the precedent, and while it is in the "EU makes some fat bank" way, it did absolutel…

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

cmsj wrote: post #693

nemothekid wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Correct, but Apple doesn't have an overwhelming market majority, so under antitrust laws it isn't capable of inhibiting competition.

Post by anticensor » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 6:20 PM UTC

Radle wrote: post #400

chii wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a company simply ignores fines it'd be interesting to imagine how a company could potentially still operate in a hostile country, if said company is only dealing with cyberspace products (such as software/saas). Would they be able to continously ignore any/all rulings, by operating the datacenter, and any payment mechanisms, outside said hostile country?

Yes, the only thing the country can do only block the companies domain in that case. For example in Turkey betting is illegal, turkey will block any bet providers page. But some providers just change their domain regularly.

Post by ComputerGuru » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

HillaryBriss wrote: post #616

shawabawa3 wrote: post #582

Earlier 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

Post by greggman » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

rjvbk wrote: post #6

vivan wrote: post #2

Can anyone concisely explain what this fine is for, and also why the same wouldn't apply to Apple for iOS? It seems to be a rehash of the issue that Microsoft faced when it only gave you Internet Explorer on install. But iOS comes with only Safari on install, and forces you to use Apple's various apps - how is this any different?

Apple does not have a monopoly dominant position. In my country I think they are like 10% of the market. You can't abuse your dominant position if you don't have one.