European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

Post by __m » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 7:26 AM UTC

codedokode wrote: post #690

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…

Those Chinese phone manufacturers often use Google Services without a license. So what Google does doesn't change anything for them. Also, Google's agreements do not prevent vendors from installing malware as long it is not competing with Google apps.

Post by dmos62 » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 8:32 AM UTC

laser wrote: post #769

dmos62 wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put the $5B fine into perspective: - Google had an operating income of 32.9 billion in 2017 [0]. $5B fine for anti-trust practices is 15.2% (5 / 32.9) of that. - HSBC had an operating income of 63.8 billion in 2017 [1]. In 2017, HSBC suffered a $1.9B fine for _willfully_ relaxing it's anti-money laundering filters in order to profit from the illegal drug industry, regimes that are embargoed, and entities or indivi…

1.9 / 63.8 != 0.29%

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 9:13 AM UTC

zmmmmm wrote: post #884

blub wrote: post #788

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 requir…

Post by luispedrocoelho » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 9:26 AM UTC

DenisM wrote: post #507

luispedrocoelho wrote: post #318

As a matter of law, the EC may be right, but as a matter of user experience, the idea that the Android market suffers from not having enough OEM-installed software on devices is a bit of a stretch. In all android phones/tablets I have seen there are a few shitty OEM apps that I have never found to be even close in quality to the google versions. The EC claims that google have "denied European consumers the benefits o…

Yes some phones will be junk, but is up to the consumers to chose, not up to monopolists.

Post by dannyw » Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 9:47 AM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #395

bubblethink wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google doesn't prevent people creating competing forks of Android, that's the entire point of Android's design. Did you read the main points of the press release ? If you (say an OEM like LG) license google play, you cannot create a competing OS based on AOSP. It has nothing to do with OEMs customizing AOSP for the devices they sell. It has everything to do with, say, an OEM selling a different phone that can run Am…

The press release is wrong, who'd have guessed. What is Samsung TouchWiz or whatever they call it these days, if not a competing OS based on AOSP. Ditto for every other Android device. Android was forked so much that for the longest time the lament of geeks everywhere was "give me a device with stock Google Android". That doesn't sound like an monopoly to me.