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

961–970 of 975 posts

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

#961

Post by rusk »

rusk wrote: post #440
frockington wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I can think of is Nokia and possibly Vodafone if those count as technology. What other big tech companies are there? Not trying to be rude, just generally curious as I don't know much about the European technology scene

I started to write a list ... but easier to google! * https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/10/meet-europe-top-tech-... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_European_compa... I actually hadn't realised Spotify was Swedish! Deezer is French. Pretty much every high-end car manufacturer. ARM. Did you know the modern three-point tractor hitch was invented by an Irishman? Modern motor cars come from Germany. The…

Oh yeah and Linux

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

#962

Post by ocdtrekkie »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #915
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If it was, it'd be provided. That's a faulty assumption right there. Usually, people providing workers with their computers and software have limited idea what those workers actually need to work efficiently. This works out fine when workflows are defined so well a trained monkey could do the job, and fails miserably when the worker needs any sort of creative control over their workflow or work output (programmers,…

> That's a faulty assumption right there. Usually,...

You accuse me of making a "faulty assumption" about my own environment, and then proceed to assume that you can speak for most/all IT environments.

When I state "if you need Chrome, we'll provide Chrome", that's true of my environment. It's also true of my environment, if we don't provide Chrome, and you find a way to install it yourself, you'd be violating policy, and barring the casual mistake of not knowing that, potentially referred to HR. Obviously, in the ideal "don't need to involve HR" case, we just make sure you can't install it.

Now, what isn't just true of my environment, but true of all environments, is that users installing random web browsers is incredibly dangerous, and something every IT department should be preventing if they own the hardware. I don't think that's even a controversial statement, I'm confused why it's being treated like one.

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

#963

Post by ocdtrekkie »

arcbyte wrote: post #956
lovich wrote: post #910

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would bring their own equipment to work in software unless they are a founder? That's like paying to work. Especially when employers like to claim ownership rights to all data generated by their employees in the course of business. Mechanics bring their own tools frequently but their employers don't try to repo their personal vehicles just because the mechanic used the same tools at home and at work

My company hands us out shit laptops running 10 different layers of security devices. Fuck that. I bring my Surface Pro in and actually enjoy my life.

Are you running your personal hardware (without the security) on the internal network? Please tell me you don't have the same level of access with personal hardware as you do with the corporate equipment.

Even in a BYOD environment, an organization should be ensuring any devices granted access to resources are appropriately patched and secured.

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

#964

Post by nl »

frockington wrote: post #314
nl wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are comparing a proportion of one year of Google's profit and all EU revenue for all time.

Couldn't they still generate revenue from ads and services in Europe? The EU could block Android phones but its not like they are going to build a firewall.

They can block all financial transactions so no EU business can use them.

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

#965

Post by [deleted] »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #962
TeMPOraL wrote: post #915

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it was, it'd be provided. That's a faulty assumption right there. Usually, people providing workers with their computers and software have limited idea what those workers actually need to work efficiently. This works out fine when workflows are defined so well a trained monkey could do the job, and fails miserably when the worker needs any sort of creative control over their workflow or work output (programmers,…

> That's a faulty assumption right there. Usually,... You accuse me of making a "faulty assumption" about my own environment, and then proceed to assume that you can speak for most/all IT environments. When I state "if you need Chrome, we'll provide Chrome", that's true of my environment . It's also true of my environment, if we don't provide Chrome, and you find a way to install it yourself, you'd be violating polic…

[deleted]

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

#966

Post by g-b-r »

candiodari wrote: post #821
lagadu wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Lots of Apple users feel like the app store gives them a pretty strong case this is mostly true. I kind of agree with them, actually.

For both Apple and Google's phones it wouldn't be hard to allow users to securely add keys of other stores or indivual software makers without requiring one to root his phone (aka destroy the security).

You'd just have to give several huge, clear warnings of what that means before allowing it.

And, by the way, security? Come on, if they really cared about the security/privacy of their users the permissions' systems would not be made of those huge blankets that are more like websites' cookie banners than real useable security controls.

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

#967

Post by repolfx »

sveme wrote: post #790
repolfx wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's hard to say that because the EU is the wrong way to organise European cooperation from the start. European cooperation should be done the way it used to be, as many multi-lateral agreements and organisations that are only loosely affiliated or not at all. But most of the European political elite want to unite the continent under a single government instead. Given that, the best kind of Brexit would be one w…

Well, I personally am in favour of the way the EU acts as a permanent umbrella to organise cooperation and according to the latest polls, the majority of people in most countries are in favour of that too. Otherwise, with each country acting on its own, they would be picked apart by the much larger players, the US, China and Russia. Maybe the UK media points a wrong picture of the mood in the EU, but I seriously doub…

I'm sure it would cease to exist. The EU has lost every referendum on further integration held in, what, the last 15 years? The EU political elites are notorious for telling countries that voted wrong to vote again, or just ignoring them.

If every population that's asked rejects the EU's vision what on earth makes you so sure that a comprehensive alternative wouldn't be popular?

Also there's no such thing as "picked apart" in the sense you mean, i.e. outside of military strategy. Nobody is picking North Korea apart despite that it's a world pariah. If a country doesn't want to collaborate with another country or accept its terms, it doesn't have to - the idea that cooperation is a form of warfare is exactly the mentality that the EU has, and is why it's so desperately dangerous and problematic as an organisation.

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

#968

Post by greggman »

redial wrote: post #809
greggman wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Ok, Intel- compatible . Apple has no monopoly on any hardware market where they are not the only one. They cannot dictate terms to any other OEM manufacturing A10- compatible computers.

Sure but MS also got in trouble for disallowing browser competition. Apple does this as well via their monopoly.

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

#969

Post by [deleted] »

cptskippy wrote: post #951
wallace_f wrote: post #902

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Segregation was legal and called "separate but equal." Unjust and incorrect laws have existed.

People tend to assume laws are right, fair, just, and moral. They're not. People also assume right equals fair equals just equals moral. Again, they're not. There may or may not be overlap on many of these but there's never a 1:1 relationship between any of them.

[deleted]

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

#970

Post by wilde »

swebs wrote: post #295

>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"). Sounds a lot how Microsoft abused licensing agreements with OEMs to discourage them from selling PCs not bundled with Windows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Win…

Manufacturers have been notorious for not security patching their forks. Manufacturers have been notorious for altering OS compat APIs to lie about device capabilities. While I wish Google would have used their leverage for a more nuanced set of requirements, I can understand the motivation here.
Post reply on HN