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

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

#881

Post by lucb1e » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 10:46 PM UTC

ehsankia wrote: post #732

lucb1e wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. >…

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

But Android claims be FOSS. I understand that "using google servers" != "the AOSP project", but there's a large number of apps whose only publication channel is this ubiquitous play store, because the devs know that practically everyone who has Android will opt into the google kingdom as well. If it was closed source like iOS and if you can't even sideload apks (or ipas or whatever they are) then I'd not be surprised that I have to agree to some near-monopoly's TOS and privpolicy in order to get access to 99% of the published apps.

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

#882

Post by ocdtrekkie » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 10:47 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #853

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The eternal conflict between lowly workers trying to get their job done and the IT department trying to prevent them from doing their jobs to make their own life easier, based on the notion that if users can't use the infrastructure, they can't break it.

Obviously, Chrome is not needed to do their jobs. If it was, it'd be provided. Browsers, especially Chrome, are a massive malware ingress point, it makes zero sense for end users to install them.

IT actually exists to help ensure people can do their job, and do their job faster. As a general goal, I like to learn about people's business processes for the exact purpose of seeing how our IT environment can be improved to expedite their work.

And having five browsers on a PC doesn't make it easier for end users. I have no problem dealing with five browsers, but I get a lot of complaints from people when they open link A in browser B and link C in browser D and don't understand why things don't work.

You may have experienced poor IT departments in the past, or thought you experienced poor IT departments because you didn't understand the other considerations in play, but that's hardly an excuse to assume any given IT choice is some sort of attempt to prevent employees from doing their jobs.

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

#883

Post by dalore » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 10:47 PM UTC

dlp211 wrote: post #490

dalore wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is talking about from the perspective of phone manufacturer. As a phone manufacturer you can't license iOS so that's out. You can really only license Android and if you do you have to also install Google Apps, Chrome, and make Google the default search engine on your phone.

You are not required to license Android to use Android. AOSP and other versions forked from AOSP do exist. There are.other mobile OSes available as well. I'm sure Microsoft will gladly let you use their OS for the right price, KaiOS, Ubuntu phone OS could be resurrected, you could role your own, I'm sure Symbian is for sale somewhere, how about Meego.

>In particular, 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").

If you want to have Google apps on your phone you can't sell any forked android version.

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

#884

Post by zmmmmm » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:05 PM UTC

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…

> you should be aware that your employer is forbidding Android manufacturers to also produce any non-certified Android-based devices

This is true but is not relevant to the situation at hand and Google has very reasonable arguments for insisting on this. As far as I understand it, there is no requirement for a manufacturer to ship Google search or the Play Store on an Android device they manufacture. They only require that manufacturers not fragment the ecosystem by breaking compatibility. If you are going to build on the back of the ecosystem, don't break that same ecosystem, and that is quite reasonable. I am sure Microsoft would not tolerate OEMs licensing windows then modifying the Windows APIs on the installed system to break compatibility with apps made by Microsoft and 3rd parties. I am quite sure they would refuse to continue to license Windows to OEMs that did that.

The issue at hand is around what Google requires once somebody wants to license the Play Store. At that point they are required to also ship Google Search as the default which is the problem.

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

#885

Post by codedokode » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:07 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #845

codedokode wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> why would google ever sell the software in the first place?

To earn money. But of course (without restrictions) there would be more competition, there would be alternative Android builds and, as a result, more software not depending on Google Play Services.

If Google could choose Apple model and be profitable, they would choose it from the start. But there is a big difference. Apple makes their own hardware and is good at it. Google doesn't and maybe they didn't want to take a risk so instead they have chosen to make only the software. Also we should remember that Google came to the smartphone market late when it was already conquered by Apple.

For example, Google has tried to enter laptop market with Chromebooks but without noticeable success.

Even if Google makes Android closed source, it doesn't mean that there would be no open platform. Maybe someone will continue developing Android, or some other OS, maybe someone will make a Linux distribution for smartphones.

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

#886

Post by zmmmmm » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:08 PM UTC

bitmapbrother wrote: post #823

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, Yes, it payed off in marketshare, but severely limited the profitability of Android and being another major revenue stream for Google. I hope this decision makes them think twice about their strategy for Fuchsia because they seem to be using the Android model all over again. Google really needs to start operating like Apple for better or worse.

That is really the sad thing about this EU decision. There are many benefits to open source, but it is extremely hard to find ways to monetise it. Google's strategy of using their investment in Android to secure Google Search on mobile was one way of monetising it. Whether you agree with it or not, the EU is shutting the door on that, and it will affect people's view of monetising open source far more generally than this specific case.

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

#887

Post by kingbirdy » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:14 PM UTC

Anagmate wrote: post #879

pergadad wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the impression that you didn't read the actual article. There are three complaints all basically about the contractual conditions Google imposes, two about imposing Google search and the most interesting one about Google forcing manufacturers to choose between selling only Google's version with Play Store & Google apps or never Google's version. This forced in particular the big ones to commit fully to Google's…

> "buy only from us or never from us" And? Seems like a valid move (from both moral and corporate perspective) to me.

If there are lots of people to buy from, that's a fair offer. If there's only one person to buy from (Google, in this case), that's not a fair offer, it's abusing your monopoly.

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

#888

Post by gkya » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:14 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #610

GeekyBear wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, Google paid to have their browser installed through the installers of other companies software, by default. For instance, by default, the installer for AVG's free antivirus program would install Google Chrome and make it the default browser.

I don't see any problem with doing a few partnerships like these. Even with some major companies. Firefox could easily do the same. It's only a problem when you squeeze out competition by doing exclusive contracts with all major distributors in a particular distribution channel.

If Mozilla is honest to its premise it can not do such a thing.

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

#889

Post by njoro » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:20 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #867

DannyBee wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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 ther…

Developers and users generally won't care whether it's open source, I agree. Manufacturers like Samsung or Sony would though, especially after their experiences with Symbian. Not because they care about freedom, but because they want to have some form of control over their own destiny. The US market was always an anomaly and under tight carrier control. There the iPhone and Android enabled choice. This is however mos…

I must say that the whole situation is very disappointing. While western companies have been folding, China has a very active smartphone ecosystem with multiple manufacturers of phones and many different providers of services, including app stores. Wasn't it supposed to be the other way around?

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

#890

Post by squarefoot » Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 11:44 PM UTC

dlp211 wrote: post #464

squarefoot wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one is much worse because although Microsoft tried to get complete control of the PC platform many years ago, they never managed to prevent people from installing other operating systems on their PCs. Had Microsoft the same power Google has now on mobile platforms, I would be writing this post using Windows 10 instead of Debian because Linux as well as *BSD and others would either not exist or could never proper…

I'm trying to understand your point. Google has nothing to do with Qualcomm keeping their hardware drivers proprietary. What am I missing?

Google monopoly is a byproduct of proprietary hardware/firmware, that's what a lot of people is missing. Going every time after this or that corporation because it built a monopoly is useless when trying to build a monopoly is everyone's untold ultimate goal in the current economic system; we would better spend our energies making sure that nobody can't even attempt to build a monopoly, and open specs hardware would be one step in this direction. I can understand telcos wanting a closed layer before the radio section to prevent people from tampering with cell service, but to me everything else has to be open.