7 ms·

Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

37 points by Jerry2 11y ago

levemi 11y ago
I don't understand why Google gets attacked when at least you can install competing services and you can't on iOS. Why does iOS get a pass? If Google built the hardware itself it could lock it down all it wants? That's the reason? You can get Firefox on Android and not on iOS. You can replace almost anything, and on iOS you can't. You can disable many of the default apps on Android, I don't know if you can on iOS.
- jodrellblank 11y ago
  You can't install competing services on iOS? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-maps/id585027354?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-maps/id585027354?mt=8 You can't get FireFox on iOS? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/firefox-web-browser/id989804926?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/firefox-web-browser/id989804...
  - levemi 11y ago
    That's not Firefox proper, that's a webview. Nobody can build an alternative browser for iOS. As for an example of competing services that can't be installed on iOS, look to f.lux.
  - ChrisClark 11y ago
    No, you can't get Firefox on iOS. You can sync bookmarks with Firefox and get a Firefox-style border around Webkit though. :(
- moreira 11y ago
  The problem, I believe, is the market share. If your OS is only on 3 or even 4 out of 10 phones, then you're not in a dominant position, and whatever you do, you're not abusing your market power, which is what antitrust is all about. So Apple and their OSs will always be safe from this kind of thing because they're simply not the biggest player when it comes to market share.
  - cageface 11y ago
    So why is it that when people want to paint Apple in a positive light they dismiss market share and point to profits? If Apple pulling in 90% of the profits in the industry is what counts when evaluating the relative strengths of both platforms then why doesn't it matter when considering abuses of market position? I think it's pretty clear that despite selling a minority of devices Apple has at least as much power to drive the overall direction of the market as Google.
    - SpaceX_Tech 11y ago
      You bring up the exact point that I was just thinking about, namely why market share is used as a criteria for defining whether certain behaviors fall into the anticompetitive realm but profit share isn’t. Apple taking 90% of overall worldwide smartphone profits may not be good for competition or the consumer, yet that isn’t regulated, not that I am suggesting that it should be. Apple obviously has enormous power due to its profitability that gives it a competitive advantage. I guess the thing I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around is exactly when normal competitive practices become anticompetitive, requiring legal intervention from regulators, and why these seem to center solely around market share and not other things like profits.
      - pyrale 11y ago
        > Apple obviously has enormous power due to its profitability that gives it a competitive advantage. The law doesn't care about competitive advantage. It cares about making sure that your competitive dominance doesn't translate into dominating other markets. For instance, Microsoft dominating personal OS market and making sure that their product stays on top is OK. Microsoft using their domination of that market to drive competition out of other markets is not.
        SpaceX_Tech 11y ago
        That makes a lot of sense but just to play devil's advocate are we considering the OS/App market separate from the hardware market? If so, and considering Apple makes a not insignificant amount from the App Store and doesn't allow competing stores on iPhone hardware, wouldn't that be an example of trying to dominate another market? Again, I don't want to come off as needlessly argumentative, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of this topic.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  Because antitrust is about leverage. Using your position in one market to get an advantage in another. Apple is the only provider of hardware running iOS, so leverage do not play a part there.
  - gefh 11y ago
    Not so long ago, physical phones and software markets were separate. Apple did a fine job muscling in its app store by leveraging the early dominance of its phone hardware.
    - digi_owl 11y ago
      The app store story is longer and thornier than that. It starts back with the iPod, a device that was at first wedded to Mac by software and hardware (first model used FireWire, not USB). Only with the release of a USB model, and subsequently iTunes on Windows do it pick up steam. Then came the music store, and Apple got in hot water on multiple front over that one. The first iPhone was bootstrapped on top of that, and the App Store only came about after jailbreakers started building a third party ecosystem of apps. And more recently Apple got into trouble over ebook price fixing, iirc.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  A few of the responses to your comments have covered a lot, but they miss the primary issue: Apple only controls itself. Through the Android MADA, a confidential contract Google forces OEMs to sign in exchange for the Play Store, Google basically de facto controls the majority of the mobile industry. Google has full veto power over all of their Android-based device and software releases. Google has a ridiculous amount of power, and if they say jump, everyone in the industry has to ask how high. They've left a bunch of "but technically" loopholes to excuse themselves, but given that it's impossible to sell a SUCCESSFUL Android smartphone without signing their contract, those loopholes don't stand up in court.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    The existence of Android, a platform for Google to push their apps and services, has been clear from the start, along with the terms by which a phone maker is able to distribute Google Play. > Google has a ridiculous amount of power, and if they say jump, everyone in the industry has to ask how high That's not an anti-trust violation. I hope they come up with something much better than that.
- glenndebacker 11y ago
  It is quite simple really, Apple has in no way the market share that a Google has. The impact of their anti-competitive decisions are vairy low. The problem is also not having big marketshare but having it AND doing things that may be anti-competitive. European companies have also brought before court for the same reasons. Btw Apple had also been brought to court for not applying European laws especially regarding warranty's which they lost.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    You're trying to make some sense of this, but no, there is no sense and it isn't simple either. For one because Google's Android does not qualify as a monopoly and the mere existence of Apple's iOS which has 20% of the European market is testament to that. But also because having a monopoly isn't illegal and I'm quite curious what anti-trust charges they are going to bring, because as the parent says, Android has been the most flexible mainstream mobile OS, more than iOS or Windows Phone. Android is the only one on top of which Firefox was possible, the only one admitting third-party installation sources and app stores and the only one that can have a CyanogenMod. Android is actually the only one that can be forked and Amazon has successfully forked Android. And the reason for why it doesn't make sense is because Google charges no licence money for Android and they've been quite forthcoming about the reason why Android exists, right from the start, its existence being all about Google having a mobile platform to distribute their apps and services. Phone makers don't even have to agree to this, though no Google agreement means no Google Play, terms that again, have been there from the start. And in fact Apple and Microsoft have both used their existing position in desktop operating systems, an easily provable oligarchy, to push their mobile OSs and lock users in. > European companies have also brought before court for the same reasons Oh, come on, you know that ain't true. They are targeting Google specifically because they don't want to share their Search & News revenue with a dying mass-media industry. And I'm saying this as an European.
    - Rangi42 11y ago
      If cornering 80% of the market is so terrible, the EU should make it illegal to sell the Nth Android phone that pushes past 79%, and/or make it illegal for the customer to buy such a phone. The absurdity of such a proposed law should make it obvious that Google is doing nothing wrong by selling popular devices with a certain operating system.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
EGreg 11y ago
Wait so the EU can have a $7B windfall from a guilty verdict yet they will remain impartial? Nice!
- fabulist 11y ago
  The judges shouldn't be seeing a penny more or less no matter the verdict. If they're bribed that is another matter.
  - EGreg 11y ago
    But don't the judges work for the EU?
    - fabulist 11y ago
      Yes, and their job is to interpret the law impartially. It isn't a perfect system. How would you suggest we improve upon it?
      - hvm 11y ago
        We could create a political body that is outside any of the countries. Everyone that agrees to be part of it will have to respect its decisions. Once this is setup the world will be united. We can then call it the United Countries or something like that. It's going to be great!
    - Oletros 11y ago
      And?
    - kitd 11y ago
      "EU" is a broad term. The legislature is a different branch to the executive ie the European Commission. Most here in the UK get it wrong too.
  - personjerry 11y ago
    Judges may think of their families, communities, and countries; in something of this scale it would be hard to be impartial.
ksdale 11y ago
To add a little context based on an antitrust course taken in a U.S. law school a few years ago, European antitrust law is quite different from American antitrust law so American ideas about market share and consumer choice may not be applicable. In the U.S. the primary focus of antitrust enforcement is on the consumer, so if the consumer is getting a solid product for "free" and has lots of other options, there is no chance of an antitrust action happening. From what I remember, European antitrust enforcement also takes the well-being of competitors into account, so if one company has a large market share and enough pricing power to make it difficult for competitors to survive, the authorities may bring legal action, based on the theory that it's better for society to have more different businesses offering choice and employing people.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  I don't think this is actually all that different. Both jurisdictions recognize that competition is preferable. Minor differences in why they focus on that, is probably not all that relevant. Making it impossible for competitors to function in the US is problematic as well, because it leads to a lack of consumer choice. (Just because Google is free, doesn't mean all of us want it.) Furthermore, the EU has demonstrated overall a stronger focus, I think, on the individual over corporate interests. Seen also in their handling of privacy, where they're willing to place large burdens on corporations in order to adequately protect their citizens' fundamental rights.
bad_user 11y ago
> abusing a dominant position in mobile operating systems to pre-install its own applications and services in smartphones So Google made Android specifically for distributing their apps and services and everybody knew this and agreed with it. It wasn't even in fine print, it was written all over it. Everybody knew what they were getting into. I don't understand how can they abuse their "position in mobile operating systems" to pre-install their apps when that has been the only reason Android exists. Is that the sound of incompetence or that of malevolence? Are they aiming for extortion? Is that it?
- iam-TJ 11y ago
  I suspect one part of the rationale behind this is that as Android has gained dominance Google has moved some core API functions out of the generic AOSP source-code (which everyone can use) and into the Google Play services which require the device manufacturer to sign a contract for, which apparently also includes terms that have - at least in the past as I understand it - required pre-installation (possibly in prominent positions) of Google applications. On that basis there is a strong correlation with the anti-trust convictions of Microsoft over bundling Internet Explorer into the Windows OS which effectively destroyed the paid-application model for web browsers (Netscape - which had 90% market share - could no longer succeed whilst charging ~US$20 (UK£15) and (AOL/Netscape) transferred the code to the Mozilla Foundation). apologies for glossing over fine-detail but I ran out of my daily parenthesis allowance.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    I know that contractual conditions for Google Play aren't so easy on phone makers, but then again phone makers are free to build their own marketplace and ecosystem. I know at least Samsung tried it, their Galaxy phones shipping with a parallel marketplace, in addition with Google Play. Didn't work out. I don't know specifics of things moved out of AOSP. If that's true, then there's some logic to it. But I did use CianogenMod without Google Play on it. It's still usable. Though certain things like Android's push notification system cannot happen without Google's infrastructure and that can't simply be free, even if the integration would be in AOSP. There might be truth to this, not saying otherwise. On Microsoft, I blame them for many things, like for killing BeOS or for fueling SCO's lawsuit against Linux or now for racketeering in the mobile industry, but bringing anti-trust charges because of Internet Explorer and splitting them up (as was the plan) would have been a terrible and unjust ruling. Netscape killed themselves and sorry to say it, but Internet Explorer was not only free and bundled, but technically superior. And that was fine IMHO, because in its place Mozilla was born and the rest is history. Regardless, compare Microsoft of the nineties to what Apple is doing now with iOS. Makes Microsoft of the nineties look quite open by comparison, doesn't it? And can you imagine a phone or a computer not shipping with a browser included by default? Speaking of browsers, Android is the only mainstream mobile OS that allows third-party browsers. Firefox is currently only possible for Android.

37 points by Jerry2 11y ago

I don't understand why Google gets attacked when at least you can install competing services and you can't on iOS. Why does iOS get a pass? If Google built the hardware itself it could lock it down all it wants? That's the reason? You can get Firefox on Android and not on iOS. You can replace almost anything, and on iOS you can't. You can disable many of the default apps on Android, I don't know if you can on iOS.

jodrellblank 11y ago
You can't install competing services on iOS? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-maps/id585027354?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-maps/id585027354?mt=8 You can't get FireFox on iOS? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/firefox-web-browser/id989804926?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/firefox-web-browser/id989804...
- levemi 11y ago
  That's not Firefox proper, that's a webview. Nobody can build an alternative browser for iOS. As for an example of competing services that can't be installed on iOS, look to f.lux.
- ChrisClark 11y ago
  No, you can't get Firefox on iOS. You can sync bookmarks with Firefox and get a Firefox-style border around Webkit though. :(
moreira 11y ago
The problem, I believe, is the market share. If your OS is only on 3 or even 4 out of 10 phones, then you're not in a dominant position, and whatever you do, you're not abusing your market power, which is what antitrust is all about. So Apple and their OSs will always be safe from this kind of thing because they're simply not the biggest player when it comes to market share.
- cageface 11y ago
  So why is it that when people want to paint Apple in a positive light they dismiss market share and point to profits? If Apple pulling in 90% of the profits in the industry is what counts when evaluating the relative strengths of both platforms then why doesn't it matter when considering abuses of market position? I think it's pretty clear that despite selling a minority of devices Apple has at least as much power to drive the overall direction of the market as Google.
  - SpaceX_Tech 11y ago
    You bring up the exact point that I was just thinking about, namely why market share is used as a criteria for defining whether certain behaviors fall into the anticompetitive realm but profit share isn’t. Apple taking 90% of overall worldwide smartphone profits may not be good for competition or the consumer, yet that isn’t regulated, not that I am suggesting that it should be. Apple obviously has enormous power due to its profitability that gives it a competitive advantage. I guess the thing I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around is exactly when normal competitive practices become anticompetitive, requiring legal intervention from regulators, and why these seem to center solely around market share and not other things like profits.
    - pyrale 11y ago
      > Apple obviously has enormous power due to its profitability that gives it a competitive advantage. The law doesn't care about competitive advantage. It cares about making sure that your competitive dominance doesn't translate into dominating other markets. For instance, Microsoft dominating personal OS market and making sure that their product stays on top is OK. Microsoft using their domination of that market to drive competition out of other markets is not.
      - SpaceX_Tech 11y ago
        That makes a lot of sense but just to play devil's advocate are we considering the OS/App market separate from the hardware market? If so, and considering Apple makes a not insignificant amount from the App Store and doesn't allow competing stores on iPhone hardware, wouldn't that be an example of trying to dominate another market? Again, I don't want to come off as needlessly argumentative, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of this topic.
digi_owl 11y ago
Because antitrust is about leverage. Using your position in one market to get an advantage in another. Apple is the only provider of hardware running iOS, so leverage do not play a part there.
- gefh 11y ago
  Not so long ago, physical phones and software markets were separate. Apple did a fine job muscling in its app store by leveraging the early dominance of its phone hardware.
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    The app store story is longer and thornier than that. It starts back with the iPod, a device that was at first wedded to Mac by software and hardware (first model used FireWire, not USB). Only with the release of a USB model, and subsequently iTunes on Windows do it pick up steam. Then came the music store, and Apple got in hot water on multiple front over that one. The first iPhone was bootstrapped on top of that, and the App Store only came about after jailbreakers started building a third party ecosystem of apps. And more recently Apple got into trouble over ebook price fixing, iirc.
ocdtrekkie 11y ago
A few of the responses to your comments have covered a lot, but they miss the primary issue: Apple only controls itself. Through the Android MADA, a confidential contract Google forces OEMs to sign in exchange for the Play Store, Google basically de facto controls the majority of the mobile industry. Google has full veto power over all of their Android-based device and software releases. Google has a ridiculous amount of power, and if they say jump, everyone in the industry has to ask how high. They've left a bunch of "but technically" loopholes to excuse themselves, but given that it's impossible to sell a SUCCESSFUL Android smartphone without signing their contract, those loopholes don't stand up in court.
- bad_user 11y ago
  The existence of Android, a platform for Google to push their apps and services, has been clear from the start, along with the terms by which a phone maker is able to distribute Google Play. > Google has a ridiculous amount of power, and if they say jump, everyone in the industry has to ask how high That's not an anti-trust violation. I hope they come up with something much better than that.
glenndebacker 11y ago
It is quite simple really, Apple has in no way the market share that a Google has. The impact of their anti-competitive decisions are vairy low. The problem is also not having big marketshare but having it AND doing things that may be anti-competitive. European companies have also brought before court for the same reasons. Btw Apple had also been brought to court for not applying European laws especially regarding warranty's which they lost.
- bad_user 11y ago
  You're trying to make some sense of this, but no, there is no sense and it isn't simple either. For one because Google's Android does not qualify as a monopoly and the mere existence of Apple's iOS which has 20% of the European market is testament to that. But also because having a monopoly isn't illegal and I'm quite curious what anti-trust charges they are going to bring, because as the parent says, Android has been the most flexible mainstream mobile OS, more than iOS or Windows Phone. Android is the only one on top of which Firefox was possible, the only one admitting third-party installation sources and app stores and the only one that can have a CyanogenMod. Android is actually the only one that can be forked and Amazon has successfully forked Android. And the reason for why it doesn't make sense is because Google charges no licence money for Android and they've been quite forthcoming about the reason why Android exists, right from the start, its existence being all about Google having a mobile platform to distribute their apps and services. Phone makers don't even have to agree to this, though no Google agreement means no Google Play, terms that again, have been there from the start. And in fact Apple and Microsoft have both used their existing position in desktop operating systems, an easily provable oligarchy, to push their mobile OSs and lock users in. > European companies have also brought before court for the same reasons Oh, come on, you know that ain't true. They are targeting Google specifically because they don't want to share their Search & News revenue with a dying mass-media industry. And I'm saying this as an European.
  - Rangi42 11y ago
    If cornering 80% of the market is so terrible, the EU should make it illegal to sell the Nth Android phone that pushes past 79%, and/or make it illegal for the customer to buy such a phone. The absurdity of such a proposed law should make it obvious that Google is doing nothing wrong by selling popular devices with a certain operating system.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

EGreg 11y ago

Wait so the EU can have a $7B windfall from a guilty verdict yet they will remain impartial? Nice!

fabulist 11y ago
The judges shouldn't be seeing a penny more or less no matter the verdict. If they're bribed that is another matter.
- EGreg 11y ago
  But don't the judges work for the EU?
  - fabulist 11y ago
    Yes, and their job is to interpret the law impartially. It isn't a perfect system. How would you suggest we improve upon it?
    - hvm 11y ago
      We could create a political body that is outside any of the countries. Everyone that agrees to be part of it will have to respect its decisions. Once this is setup the world will be united. We can then call it the United Countries or something like that. It's going to be great!
  - Oletros 11y ago
    And?
  - kitd 11y ago
    "EU" is a broad term. The legislature is a different branch to the executive ie the European Commission. Most here in the UK get it wrong too.
- personjerry 11y ago
  Judges may think of their families, communities, and countries; in something of this scale it would be hard to be impartial.

ksdale 11y ago

To add a little context based on an antitrust course taken in a U.S. law school a few years ago, European antitrust law is quite different from American antitrust law so American ideas about market share and consumer choice may not be applicable. In the U.S. the primary focus of antitrust enforcement is on the consumer, so if the consumer is getting a solid product for "free" and has lots of other options, there is no chance of an antitrust action happening. From what I remember, European antitrust enforcement also takes the well-being of competitors into account, so if one company has a large market share and enough pricing power to make it difficult for competitors to survive, the authorities may bring legal action, based on the theory that it's better for society to have more different businesses offering choice and employing people.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
I don't think this is actually all that different. Both jurisdictions recognize that competition is preferable. Minor differences in why they focus on that, is probably not all that relevant. Making it impossible for competitors to function in the US is problematic as well, because it leads to a lack of consumer choice. (Just because Google is free, doesn't mean all of us want it.) Furthermore, the EU has demonstrated overall a stronger focus, I think, on the individual over corporate interests. Seen also in their handling of privacy, where they're willing to place large burdens on corporations in order to adequately protect their citizens' fundamental rights.

bad_user 11y ago

> abusing a dominant position in mobile operating systems to pre-install its own applications and services in smartphones So Google made Android specifically for distributing their apps and services and everybody knew this and agreed with it. It wasn't even in fine print, it was written all over it. Everybody knew what they were getting into. I don't understand how can they abuse their "position in mobile operating systems" to pre-install their apps when that has been the only reason Android exists. Is that the sound of incompetence or that of malevolence? Are they aiming for extortion? Is that it?

iam-TJ 11y ago
I suspect one part of the rationale behind this is that as Android has gained dominance Google has moved some core API functions out of the generic AOSP source-code (which everyone can use) and into the Google Play services which require the device manufacturer to sign a contract for, which apparently also includes terms that have - at least in the past as I understand it - required pre-installation (possibly in prominent positions) of Google applications. On that basis there is a strong correlation with the anti-trust convictions of Microsoft over bundling Internet Explorer into the Windows OS which effectively destroyed the paid-application model for web browsers (Netscape - which had 90% market share - could no longer succeed whilst charging ~US$20 (UK£15) and (AOL/Netscape) transferred the code to the Mozilla Foundation). apologies for glossing over fine-detail but I ran out of my daily parenthesis allowance.
- bad_user 11y ago
  I know that contractual conditions for Google Play aren't so easy on phone makers, but then again phone makers are free to build their own marketplace and ecosystem. I know at least Samsung tried it, their Galaxy phones shipping with a parallel marketplace, in addition with Google Play. Didn't work out. I don't know specifics of things moved out of AOSP. If that's true, then there's some logic to it. But I did use CianogenMod without Google Play on it. It's still usable. Though certain things like Android's push notification system cannot happen without Google's infrastructure and that can't simply be free, even if the integration would be in AOSP. There might be truth to this, not saying otherwise. On Microsoft, I blame them for many things, like for killing BeOS or for fueling SCO's lawsuit against Linux or now for racketeering in the mobile industry, but bringing anti-trust charges because of Internet Explorer and splitting them up (as was the plan) would have been a terrible and unjust ruling. Netscape killed themselves and sorry to say it, but Internet Explorer was not only free and bundled, but technically superior. And that was fine IMHO, because in its place Mozilla was born and the rest is history. Regardless, compare Microsoft of the nineties to what Apple is doing now with iOS. Makes Microsoft of the nineties look quite open by comparison, doesn't it? And can you imagine a phone or a computer not shipping with a browser included by default? Speaking of browsers, Android is the only mainstream mobile OS that allows third-party browsers. Firefox is currently only possible for Android.