Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 975 posts

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

#771

Post by GeekyBear »

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.

>you're projecting your own expectations onto what Google has really been selling

Andy Rubin in 2010 speaking on how open Android is:

>the definition of open: "mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make"

https://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429

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

#772

Post by redial »

cageface wrote: post #268
mustacheemperor wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the comment below enumerating the reasons for the ruling, I don't see any overlap between what Google is being fined for and Apple's business practices. Apple isn't forcing 3rd party OEMs to install Safari on their hardware in order to run Apple apps because Apple makes all their own hardware. iOS is not an open source OS meant to be available to third parties, and Apple doesn't have a search engine to pay…

You missed my point. Effectively there is more than one kind of monopoly and Apple has just as much control over the mobile space as Google does and abuses it in their own way by pushing their browser, disallowing third party app stores and alternative default mail, maps, etc. Expect to see more of this as Apple starts to rely more and more on services revenue. Apple currently pulls in an astonishing 87% of mobile pr…

They are not excluded. They are just not breaking the law that says you cannot force manufacturers to bundle your market-leading-services to gain an unfair advantage in other markets.

Apple might be breaking other laws, but not this one. Google is breaking this law. Hence the fine.

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

#773

Post by greggman »

redial wrote: post #758
greggman wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, Microsoft did not have a monopoly on personal computers. It had a monopoly on Intel based computers. See the actual judgement for details. Apple has a monopoly on A9, A10, and A11 based computers.

> It had a monopoly on Intel based computers. No, it had a monopoly on IBM-Compatible computers, which is a category that includes multiple OEMs that sell compatible machines. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on any market category where more than 1 player (Apple) is involved.

no it didn't. see the actual ruling

quote: "The District Court determined that Microsoft had maintained a monopoly in the market for Intel compatible PC operating system"

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253...

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

#774

Post by paulie_a »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #767
paulie_a wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you try that on my box, your admin rights will be removed. Preventing me from installing necessary software to do my job is unethical.

Users who have a valid necessity for Chrome can have it, in a very controlled fashion (extensions and cloud features disabled) on request and review.

Im ignoring that request and review process. I don't need a beaucratic process. Im just going to do it.

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

#775

Post by xg15 »

gergles wrote: post #467
chmod775 wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android experience". They manifestly have a profound connection with each other. Fire OS and my personal phone which is running a Google-free version of LineageOS would like to have a word. > And if we just go around clubbing everything coarsely, why does my BMW have a BMW entertainment system? BMW doesn't have a dominant market position it could abuse. Nei…

> Fire OS and my personal phone which is running a Google-free version of LineageOS would like to have a word. Hilariously, you just made the parent's point for them - you yourself said you aren't running Android but Fire OS or LineageOS. Android , the product, comes with Chrome, Google Search, and the Google Play Store. If you want Android, you have to take all of Android. If you want to run something else, go for i…

And yet, Google is preventing vendors from selling phones with FireOS or LineageOS on them. How would those phones "fragment the Android experience" if they don't have anything to do with Android?

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

#776

Post by _bxg1 »

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…

As the adage goes, if a for-profit corporation gives something away for free, you're not the customer, you're the product. This applies to OEM's, in this case. The "product" is a Google-controlled mobile landscape; the OEM's aren't customers, they're a means to that end.

These days I actually feel more comfortable when things aren't free. It means the company's motives aren't (completely) obfuscated.

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

#777

Post by redial »

beerlord wrote: post #681
ummonk wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks"). This is the most clearly anti-competitive practice.

I would argue that its actually pro-consumer - because if I was Google's CEO, I would just shut down AOSP, and wish that I had done it years ago, in relation to this ruling. Google supports AOSP and has done so for years, making it available freely. Why shouldn't they be able to dictate their own terms? If phone makers don't like it, they can make their own OS (which they have - and they all suck).

This is why:

> Google has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

Hence the fine.

You cannot have something open and control it at the same time.

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

#778

Post by russdpale »

DannyBee wrote: post #733
sah2ed wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Very interesting, thank you for the post! I will say that from our perspective on the outside, we (as in techies, app developers, etc) were pretty damned excited for open source. Its why I ditched my iphone and have been android ever since. Pure android is a much better experience, imho, than iphone will ever be or has been in the past.. the problem with android is that you get a nice new android phone and its riddled with crap ware you can't get rid of unless you know how to root and install a nice AOSP rom and the phone is even popular enough to warrant someone figuring out how to root it... which is great for me but not for a lot of other people who don't even know what root is.

I also don't understand why the nexus phone line got cut. I guess it wasn't selling well? I can't understand why though. My wife has a nexus 6p and its a great phone that was well priced.

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

#779

Post by lagadu »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #437
Dayshine wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And if we just go around clubbing everything coarsely, why does my BMW have a BMW entertainment system Because BMW don't have market dominance in either the car industry or the entertainment system industry. If they used dominance in one to affect the other, they would be in breach of that legislation. >This is absolutely not at all clear cut. It is incredibly nuanced So how do you explain Google's non-compliance wh…

So it's only against the law once the company becomes big enough? If, for example, BMW _did_ become an extremely successful car manufacturer to the point where they were capturing >80% of the market, would they suddenly no longer be allowed to bundle their own entertainment system with their cars?

> So it's only against the law once the company becomes big enough?

Yes, that's exactly what monopoly abuse laws are for.

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

#780

Post by ebikelaw »

mpweiher wrote: post #692
nojvek wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever we say about the EU, it seems they’re keeping US companies in check. Sure GDPR is vague and had Edge cases, but it’s been a huge boon to the world. Thank you EU.

> keeping US companies in check Also keeping EU companies in check :-)

If there were any EU tech companies to check, then they would be.
Post reply on HN