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

841–850 of 975 posts

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

#841

Post by datalist »

datalist wrote: post #836
cageface wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only one of those platforms that even kind of mattered on the desktop at the time was Apple and even they were way more niche than they were today. The web space certainly did matter and it was clear at the time it would come to matter a lot more if Microsoft wasn’t permitted to go on strangling it with IE and ActiveX.

And yet there was competition. It is similar to today, respectively we have even less choice, we have two platforms, out of which one is mostly a lifestyle company and has a minor market share of ~20%, whereas the second is dominating the market at ~80%

And no, the web barely mattered in the mid to late 90s. That was the time when it was still nice there ;)

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

#842

Post by DannyBee »

blub wrote: post #788
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…

Having worked for so many years at Google, you should be aware that your employer is forbidding Android manufacturers to also produce any non-certified Android-based devices. No Android logo, no app store, no GApps, still forbidden if that company happens to sell an unrelated Android device. So in fact it is not about "whether Google is allowed to control the experience of Android phones that want to use the Google a…

(The rest we are going to disagree on. I know the specifics of these agreements and advised on some of them, so i can't talk about them for rea)

"There's a very good chance that without it being open source it would have went precisely nowhere. "

Why? You say a lot of things, but none seem to related to why this is true. As far as i can tell, it is definitively not true.

The app developers were happy to go where there was money, and the users certainly didn't care.

Again, i'm a huge supporter of open source projects, i donate to the FSF, etc. I would love for it to be the case to say that Android was a success/failure because of open source. It's just i've seen exactly zero data that supports this notion, and a lot that doesn't.

The real history rewrite here is the rewrite that Android didn't enable choice or competition. Before Android all of the systems you're talking about had user interfaces that were tightly controlled by the carriers right down to the Verizon internet browser. Your best case scenario would be apple winning. Your worst case scenario is you still have Verizon deciding what your phone user interface should be like.

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

#843

Post by cageface »

datalist wrote: post #838
cageface wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely still true today. If you think otherwise you are clearly not in the business of developing mobile apps. Ten years ago native mobile apps were barely even a thing. Take the HQ app for just one recent high profile app out of countless other examples.

Absolutely not true today and I am in that business. The number of companies which are iOS-only or even iOS-first is negligible these days. In most cases both platforms are supported, often with Android having a head start.

I’ve been developing mobile apps professionally for 8 years. Clients want and care about iOS first. Android gets kicked down the road and outsourced to a third party every time. The only thing that’s changed is that people realize they need an android version eventually, instead of just ignoring it completely.

Maybe it’s different in some other markets but this is simply irrefutable in the USA and anybody trying to argue otherwise is just being disingenuous.

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

#844

Post by radium3d »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #655
radium3d wrote: post #618

I feel the EU needs to educate their government. Microsoft != Google when it comes to the Android OS. Google made Android free to make cheap devices possible for everyone to be able to afford a smartphone. They include their search engine as a way to fund all of their contribution to the development of Android. Manufacturers can pay to remove Google, it's still an option for them. How is this not a trustworthy busine…

What do you mean by pay to remove Google?

Actually maybe they don't have to pay, LineageOS comes to mind?

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

#845

Post by DannyBee »

codedokode wrote: post #740
DannyBee wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ah. So this goes to the question i ask: If Google had to do as you say (sell the software with no restrictions), why would google ever sell the software in the first place?

Microsoft tried that and was fairly unsuccessful.

Future folks would likely just choose the Apple model - don't sell the software at all.

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

#846

Post by delecti »

brainwad wrote: post #820
delecti wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not selling something isn't "such onerous terms". They're allowed to not sell their software for others to use.

Then why isn't Google allowed to not sell their software to others to use? Google doesn't want to let Amazon have the Play Store without following conditions, they should have that right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)

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

#847

Post by TeMPOraL »

lagadu wrote: post #743
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…

Are you actually arguing that giving less freedom to the consumer is for their own good? Am I just missing the sarcasm maybe?

That's pretty much the entire argument behind security, in computers or otherwise. Security features reduce yout ability to do what you want on your device.

(And it's not just an abstract "what if I want to shoot my own foot off" issue. Consider e.g. sandboxing, which by its very nature kills interoperability. In a non-sandboxed environment, you can write code that forces two applications to interoperate, whether their authors like it or not. In a sandboxed environment, you're limited to what vendors allow you.)

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

#848

Post by kajecounterhack »

bad_user wrote: post #747
kajecounterhack wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, that was Android’s marketing from day 1 and as far as OEMs go, Google’s conditions have evolved, along with what they are shoving down on their users’ throats. And as far as “free as in freedom” goes, the US law agrees with me via “estoppel”.

Open doesn't mean the same thing as free. Estoppel does not help that "free as in freedom" was never true.

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

#849

Post by Jach »

LamaOfRuin wrote: post #715
trasz wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has Google actually claimed the kernel is "essential and inseparable", or did they just do that wrt the closed-source Google apps, though?

I don't consider that part up to Google's discretion. It simply doesn't function without the kernel. The question is whether the Google apps are also essential and inseparable which would tie them to the kernel as part of a derivative work (according to this interpretation which may or may not hold up in court).

It won't function without a kernel, but will it not function without the Linux kernel? Since the Solaris days with lxrun all the way through present time with Windows 10's linux subsystem and SmartOS's lx-branded zones, you could run Linux binaries (and entire distros) on a system without the Linux kernel, with various amounts of support/breakage. Still, no GPL2 kernel needed.

I suspect that when a lawyer uses "essential and inseparable" they do not mean the same thing a technologist would mean. The GPL itself doesn't use that language, and anyway it's trivial to argue that a full OS distro isn't "based on" (the language of the GPL) the kernel itself.

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

#850

Post by datalist »

cageface wrote: post #843
datalist wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not true today and I am in that business. The number of companies which are iOS-only or even iOS-first is negligible these days. In most cases both platforms are supported, often with Android having a head start.

I’ve been developing mobile apps professionally for 8 years. Clients want and care about iOS first. Android gets kicked down the road and outsourced to a third party every time. The only thing that’s changed is that people realize they need an android version eventually, instead of just ignoring it completely. Maybe it’s different in some other markets but this is simply irrefutable in the USA and anybody trying to a…

Eight years ago I'd agree with you, probably even five-ish, but for the past two, three years there is virtually no difference anymore and Android is usually the priority, except for some designer firms who still live in their Apple bubble.

For the US market it might be different, as it is one of the few markets where Apple is still the clear leader.

Post reply on HN