7 ms·

Google Shuts Out Competitors on Android? Hardly

45 points by panarky 11y ago

thedevil 11y ago
This whole anti-trust case seems to be for the benefit of certain businesses (Microsoft, Yandex, etc) and not consumers.
- merb 11y ago
  actually it's the EU. What happens in the EU is never good for consumers and never was. Actually most people that 'control' the EU are politicans that aren't needed / wanted in their foreign country. Consider 'Günther Hermann Oettinger', he is the European Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society. Actually it's really hard to take this guy serious. Just listen at his early talks at the EU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2Pz4naZPs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2Pz4naZPs Horrible.. Really. Also he was the one who was for the right to be forgotten, but still only in Google (tm). The information is still their, it's just harder to find it. Actually the EU is the worst thing that could happen to the European Countries since the WWII. It's gone in the wrong direction.
  - secfirstmd 11y ago
    Not going to even bother dissecting this argument. Living in the UK at the moment we see so much of this Britexit type hyperbole (without any real thought or planning for the future): "Actually the EU is the worst thing that could happen to the European Countries since the WWII" Really? How about invasion through the Fulda Gap by the USSR? Or communism spreading and taking hold of more of Europe? Or the food supply failing leading to famine? Or constant nationalism resulting in WW3? Or resurgent Nazism? or an outbreak of civil wars across the whole continent? or outbreak of disease? or nuclear terrorism? or massive levels of regular terrorism? or massive energy crisis leading to huge death tolls because of colds. I can go on... For just one of the huge amount of positive benefits of the EU, I will leave the argument to Patrick Stewart doing a short comedy about it: http://www.theguardian.com/culture/video/2016/apr/25/patrick-stewart-sketch-what-has-the-echr-ever-done-for-us-video http://www.theguardian.com/culture/video/2016/apr/25/patrick...
    - merb 11y ago
      Actually terrorism could actually be targeted against the EU. It's really hard to say if there wouldn't be any without the EU. But I really think that without opening the borders as it was done with some EU contract, it wouldn't be as worse at it is now. If these days somebody would bomb some citizens it's really hard to say from where these people would come. In most parts of the EU you could've just go in and out whenever you want without many controls. It changed lately but still a lot of people are here now which could be good or bad, we don't know, we actually don't know anything about them and they don't know anything about us. This could lead to terrorism as well. I mean if some groups can't correlate with other groups that will be troublesome. Hopefully everything goes well.
    - secfirstmd 11y ago
      I can't reply directly to your comment on terrorism but I completely refute your argument. As an Irish person I can tell you right now that the EU has been instrumental in helping end the conflict in Northern Ireland (and I'm sure the same in Basque areas etc also). While they didn't negotiate the actual peace agreements - the benefits that came with EU membership were vital to ensuring the Republican/Nationalist leadership came to the negotiating table. -> increased standard of living -> jobs -> social protection -> fair trials -> rights for citizens etc etc etc
      - merb 11y ago
        Btw. Ireland is one of the best examples why the EU doesn't work. A lot of the good parts of Ireland happened, caused by the low cut tax rates. Even german companies used some tricks until 2014/2015 to get money out of the EU by using some 'double Irish arrangement' or other stuff. Ireland is actually one of the best countries for businesses inside the EU and it can't be good that one country is better than any other country inside the EU. In a group of countries with the same exchange it should be forbidden to have different tax rates and some other specials for companies. Also I doubt that 90% of the stuff you said would be possible just without the EU. I also thing that actually most things would actually be easier. Actually there is way more controversial stuff inside the EU that I know of and that is publicly available. Also I live in germany and we profited the most from the things happened inside the EU, that's actually controversial as well.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - gambiting 11y ago
    You are just absolutely wrong. And really? Worst thing? Like.....communism in Poland that nearly destroyed my country, which is now booming in EU, is somehow better? It's also nonsense that EU politicians are the ones that aren't needed in their country, our own representative, Mr. Tusk, was a great prime minister and no one wanted to see him go.
- kyrra 11y ago
  Microsoft and Google have agreed to stop going after eachother: http://recode.net/2016/04/22/microsoft-google-agree-to-stop-complaining-to-regulators-about-each-other/ http://recode.net/2016/04/22/microsoft-google-agree-to-stop-... Though, Microsoft originally made their complaints against Google in the EU back in 2011: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-google-idUSTRE72U1IN20110331 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-google-idUSTRE72... And Obama calls the EU out as saying the EU is engaging in protectionism: http://recode.net/2015/02/17/europeans-dismiss-president-obamas-remarks-about-protectionism/ http://recode.net/2015/02/17/europeans-dismiss-president-oba... The opinions stated here are my own, not necessarily those of Google.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >And Obama calls the EU out as saying the EU is engaging in protectionism Ironically that's not even protectionism - it's cracking down on tax evasion. When Obama slapped a 30% tax on Chinese solar panel imports to aid the US oil/gas/utility industries - that's protectionism.
    - wlesieutre 11y ago
      The actual reason for those subsidies is to protect the US solar panel industry. China's panels are artificially cheap because China massively subsidizes their manufacture. These are known as "countervailing duties" [1]. The likely alternative to that is allowing China's subsidized panels to undercut domestic producers, we have cheap panels until our industry goes entirely out of business, and then have prices get jacked up because the competition is gone. EDIT: If you want to stop aiding the US oil/gas/utility industries, there are plenty of direct subsidies and tax breaks that could be removed instead of the tariffs on Chinese PV panels. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_duties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_duties
      - crdoconnor 11y ago
        No, that was the sales pitch. US solar companies contribute very little to political campaigns. Their lobbying power is very limited. Their influence is comparable (or less, even) to the US steel industry which has faced dumping and basically been told to go fuck themselves. The utilities industry, on the other hand, contributes a lot of cash to political campaigns, and has already been caught trying to influence legislators in an attempt to kill domestic solar demand (lobbying vociferously through back channels to eliminate the FIT). This is exactly what they want. That was enough to make me suspicious enough to read a large chunk of the very dull document by the US dept of state that tried to justify characterizing China's solar exports as dumping. Many of the things in the document were clutching at straws (e.g. complaining about 'free publicity' given by the local government by listing the solar companies on their website).
- kuschku 11y ago
  As a customer, I’m annoyed by having an un-removable Google bar in the recents menu on my Nexus device. No way to remove without modifying the OS itself (unlocking bootloader, compiling AOSP myself, flashing myself). As a developer, I’m annoyed by being forced to use Google Cloud Messaging – even when that might make it impossible for my app to send notifications, because there is no single server sending notifications, but millions (distributed systems are like that), and therefore Google is now locking my app out from receiving notifications on Android M and N during doze. On Android M that means during the night, on Android N that means as soon as the app is in background, it can’t send notifications. And then there’s the Anti-Fragmentation clause, that forbids OEMs from forking Android. The Anti-Fragmentation clause – which has been used several times by Google against Kindle devices and Tizen – might in fact end up being illegal. The EC has picked the fight mostly because of this.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    I hope it doesn't wind up being illegal. The android security landscape is a disaster, in part, because of fragmentation. OEMs need to stop screwing around with devices.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      That’s the cost of having a choice. If there was only one car, we would have far less to worry about, too. But the laws say that a software manufacturer – Microsoft or Google – can’t coerce OEMs – be they Dell or SAMSUNG – into using their OS on all systems.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        What coercion? Those developers can use AOSP and roll whatever OS suits their fancy. They want to ship Google's code, they play by their rules. Sounds only fair.
        kuschku 11y ago
        No, they can’t. Google prevents OEMs like SAMSUNG from shipping Kindle devices. If SAMSUNG were to ship a Kindle device, Google would immediately stop licensing them the Play Store for their other devices. This is part of the contract between Google and OEMs, and it contains this specific limitation that an OEM can only either ship Google Play devices, or AOSP devices – but not both at the same time.
- bko 11y ago
  Don't forget Blackberry! BlackBerry CEO Wants Legislators To Make Developing BlackBerry Apps Mandatory [0] [0] http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/21/blackberry-wut/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/21/blackberry-wut/
mrkgnao 11y ago
The title reads like a cryptic crossword clue.
bearcobra 11y ago
I'm curious to see if the argument made in the article holds water in court. Do the examples of other services winning in messaging, music, social, & storage out weight the App Store and search dominance. Or will the case be about the limits placed on phone manufacturers, not consumers, making all of it moot.
- abritinthebay 11y ago
  It's not about limiting consumers actions it's about limiting consumer choice in the market place. Related but different. The EU actually has a pretty good case tbh, though I doubt it'll lead to very much. Google wants to have the closed control that Apple does (because they want to control the software) but wants to tout their difference in "openess" because they needed that to sell hardware (which they profoundly suck at at scale). Now they've got better at the hardware (see, Nexus lines) they want to slowly choke off competition. This has been obvious for years but there was very little to be done about it other than companies moving away from Android (which isn't really practical short to medium term) or some kind of governmental play - which this is. Now... will the EU win? Possibly, it's not a slam dunk, but it could lead to small - but important - changes in how Google has to play the game.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Except this isn't about consumer control. The EU anti-trust suit is based on licensing for the proprietary Google Play app, which requires Google Search to be bundled by manufacturers that want to install Play. Android is open sourced, the Google Play services are not, and they're not required to run Android. Consumers can install/uninstall anything they want. Manufacturers can preinstall anything they want, just that if the license to preinstall the Play app they need to preinstall Search.
    - abritinthebay 11y ago
      > Except this isn't about consumer control. I know...? I said exactly that..?
pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
so, they shut out competitors, but it was hard for them to do it? hardly.
_stephan 11y ago
An alternate point of view by the Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21697193-european-commission-going-after-google-againthis-time-better-chance http://www.economist.com/news/business/21697193-european-com...
- bduerst 11y ago
  Tl;dr: Android is open sourced, Google Play services are not. Licenses for manufacturers to preinstall the proprietary Google Play app require them to also to preinstall Google search. Android manufacturers aren't forced to preinstall Play services. Users can still uninstall either Play, search, or any number of the preinstalled manufacturer apps (which aren't locked by manufacturers), right? How is this different than if Google made just one app for play and search?
  - nugget 11y ago
    In tightly controlled ecosystems the default state is effectively what most consumers will keep and use. This is sometimes informally called the power of default. Entire billion dollar markets can rise and fall based on something as simple as an opt-out versus opt-in policy. It's a little like that Supreme Court ruling that said ''the power to tax is the power to destroy''. The power of default is not much different especially when you control the entire underlying OS. Anti-trust regulators are right to focus on what these default settings are.
    - bduerst 11y ago
      So is Apple preinstalling iTunes as the default music service antitrust too?
      - nugget 11y ago
        If Apple had vast majority of market share, pre-installed iTunes, integrated iTunes functionality throughout the OS so that it had more intuitive prominence than other competing services, then yes, that would be close to the definition of antitrust as I understand it (using dominant control in one market to create or maintain dominant control in a second market). This is what Microsoft was penalized for, appropriately, with Windows and the browser market.
mentaat 11y ago
"Google Plus is now all but dead". Hearing that a lot but I don't see any evidence of that. Where is the proof?
Apofis 11y ago
Why is it always Google? Apple's iOS is far more locked down and I don't ever see them in the sights of anti-trust lawsuits.
- panarky 11y ago
  Yes, it seems that Google is held to a completely different standard than their competitors. Google open-sourced Android, and now competitors like Amazon build Fire Phones and Fire Tablets. Can you imagine the same openness from Apple or Microsoft? Google allows alternatives to the Google Play Store like Amazon AppStore. Apple and Microsoft are locked down. Apple won't let you create an app that competes with Apple services, but Google does. Apple and Microsoft default their maps and other apps. Microsoft defaults Bing as the search engine on mobile and desktop, and Apple requires a billion-dollar payment to default Google search on iOS. Where is the anti-trust action against Google's competition? Think about why there might be a double standard here.
- millstone 11y ago
  Antitrust law is concerned with anti-competitive contracts and agreements. Apple controlling what Apple ships on Apple hardware is fine. Google controlling what Samsung ships on Samsung hardware is not so fine.
  - panarky 11y ago
    The point of the article is that Samsung is free to load up its phones with dozens of apps that compete directly with Google. Samsung can change the default search engine to Bing, they can pre-install Facebook, Whatsapp and Skype. They can make is so you can't uninstall Facebook if you don't want it. Seems like a much more competitive market than the Apple or Microsoft mobile ecosystems.
    - millstone 11y ago
      > The point of the article is that Samsung is free to load up its phones with dozens of apps that compete directly with Google. OEMs must give the Google apps very prominent placement, including a Google search bar on the home screen, and in many cases set them as the default. But this isn't at the heart of the objection. The strongest point is that Google forbids its licensees from shipping alternative versions of Android. This means that Samsung cannot offer consumers a choice between (say) GoogleAndroid and Cyanogen. > Samsung can change the default search engine to Bing Google requires OEMs to set Google as the default search engine, according to the EU complaint. I don't know if that's true; I speculate it's not true for Samsung (which has negotiating leverage) but is true for smaller OEMs. > Seems like a much more competitive market than the Apple or Microsoft mobile ecosystems. No way. A true competitive market would be a bunch of Apple-like firms, independently building whatever products they want. Instead we have all but a handful of OEMs beholden to Google, under contracts which oblige them to do things Google's way, and no other way ("anti-fragmentation"). The article makes a case that consumers aren't being harmed by this, because OEMs make terrible software. This may be true. But it's still anti-competitive.

45 points by panarky 11y ago

This whole anti-trust case seems to be for the benefit of certain businesses (Microsoft, Yandex, etc) and not consumers.

merb 11y ago
actually it's the EU. What happens in the EU is never good for consumers and never was. Actually most people that 'control' the EU are politicans that aren't needed / wanted in their foreign country. Consider 'Günther Hermann Oettinger', he is the European Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society. Actually it's really hard to take this guy serious. Just listen at his early talks at the EU: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2Pz4naZPs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2Pz4naZPs Horrible.. Really. Also he was the one who was for the right to be forgotten, but still only in Google (tm). The information is still their, it's just harder to find it. Actually the EU is the worst thing that could happen to the European Countries since the WWII. It's gone in the wrong direction.
- secfirstmd 11y ago
  Not going to even bother dissecting this argument. Living in the UK at the moment we see so much of this Britexit type hyperbole (without any real thought or planning for the future): "Actually the EU is the worst thing that could happen to the European Countries since the WWII" Really? How about invasion through the Fulda Gap by the USSR? Or communism spreading and taking hold of more of Europe? Or the food supply failing leading to famine? Or constant nationalism resulting in WW3? Or resurgent Nazism? or an outbreak of civil wars across the whole continent? or outbreak of disease? or nuclear terrorism? or massive levels of regular terrorism? or massive energy crisis leading to huge death tolls because of colds. I can go on... For just one of the huge amount of positive benefits of the EU, I will leave the argument to Patrick Stewart doing a short comedy about it: http://www.theguardian.com/culture/video/2016/apr/25/patrick-stewart-sketch-what-has-the-echr-ever-done-for-us-video http://www.theguardian.com/culture/video/2016/apr/25/patrick...
  - merb 11y ago
    Actually terrorism could actually be targeted against the EU. It's really hard to say if there wouldn't be any without the EU. But I really think that without opening the borders as it was done with some EU contract, it wouldn't be as worse at it is now. If these days somebody would bomb some citizens it's really hard to say from where these people would come. In most parts of the EU you could've just go in and out whenever you want without many controls. It changed lately but still a lot of people are here now which could be good or bad, we don't know, we actually don't know anything about them and they don't know anything about us. This could lead to terrorism as well. I mean if some groups can't correlate with other groups that will be troublesome. Hopefully everything goes well.
  - secfirstmd 11y ago
    I can't reply directly to your comment on terrorism but I completely refute your argument. As an Irish person I can tell you right now that the EU has been instrumental in helping end the conflict in Northern Ireland (and I'm sure the same in Basque areas etc also). While they didn't negotiate the actual peace agreements - the benefits that came with EU membership were vital to ensuring the Republican/Nationalist leadership came to the negotiating table. -> increased standard of living -> jobs -> social protection -> fair trials -> rights for citizens etc etc etc
    - merb 11y ago
      Btw. Ireland is one of the best examples why the EU doesn't work. A lot of the good parts of Ireland happened, caused by the low cut tax rates. Even german companies used some tricks until 2014/2015 to get money out of the EU by using some 'double Irish arrangement' or other stuff. Ireland is actually one of the best countries for businesses inside the EU and it can't be good that one country is better than any other country inside the EU. In a group of countries with the same exchange it should be forbidden to have different tax rates and some other specials for companies. Also I doubt that 90% of the stuff you said would be possible just without the EU. I also thing that actually most things would actually be easier. Actually there is way more controversial stuff inside the EU that I know of and that is publicly available. Also I live in germany and we profited the most from the things happened inside the EU, that's actually controversial as well.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gambiting 11y ago
  You are just absolutely wrong. And really? Worst thing? Like.....communism in Poland that nearly destroyed my country, which is now booming in EU, is somehow better? It's also nonsense that EU politicians are the ones that aren't needed in their country, our own representative, Mr. Tusk, was a great prime minister and no one wanted to see him go.
kyrra 11y ago
Microsoft and Google have agreed to stop going after eachother: http://recode.net/2016/04/22/microsoft-google-agree-to-stop-complaining-to-regulators-about-each-other/ http://recode.net/2016/04/22/microsoft-google-agree-to-stop-... Though, Microsoft originally made their complaints against Google in the EU back in 2011: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-google-idUSTRE72U1IN20110331 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-google-idUSTRE72... And Obama calls the EU out as saying the EU is engaging in protectionism: http://recode.net/2015/02/17/europeans-dismiss-president-obamas-remarks-about-protectionism/ http://recode.net/2015/02/17/europeans-dismiss-president-oba... The opinions stated here are my own, not necessarily those of Google.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >And Obama calls the EU out as saying the EU is engaging in protectionism Ironically that's not even protectionism - it's cracking down on tax evasion. When Obama slapped a 30% tax on Chinese solar panel imports to aid the US oil/gas/utility industries - that's protectionism.
  - wlesieutre 11y ago
    The actual reason for those subsidies is to protect the US solar panel industry. China's panels are artificially cheap because China massively subsidizes their manufacture. These are known as "countervailing duties" [1]. The likely alternative to that is allowing China's subsidized panels to undercut domestic producers, we have cheap panels until our industry goes entirely out of business, and then have prices get jacked up because the competition is gone. EDIT: If you want to stop aiding the US oil/gas/utility industries, there are plenty of direct subsidies and tax breaks that could be removed instead of the tariffs on Chinese PV panels. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_duties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_duties
    - crdoconnor 11y ago
      No, that was the sales pitch. US solar companies contribute very little to political campaigns. Their lobbying power is very limited. Their influence is comparable (or less, even) to the US steel industry which has faced dumping and basically been told to go fuck themselves. The utilities industry, on the other hand, contributes a lot of cash to political campaigns, and has already been caught trying to influence legislators in an attempt to kill domestic solar demand (lobbying vociferously through back channels to eliminate the FIT). This is exactly what they want. That was enough to make me suspicious enough to read a large chunk of the very dull document by the US dept of state that tried to justify characterizing China's solar exports as dumping. Many of the things in the document were clutching at straws (e.g. complaining about 'free publicity' given by the local government by listing the solar companies on their website).
kuschku 11y ago
As a customer, I’m annoyed by having an un-removable Google bar in the recents menu on my Nexus device. No way to remove without modifying the OS itself (unlocking bootloader, compiling AOSP myself, flashing myself). As a developer, I’m annoyed by being forced to use Google Cloud Messaging – even when that might make it impossible for my app to send notifications, because there is no single server sending notifications, but millions (distributed systems are like that), and therefore Google is now locking my app out from receiving notifications on Android M and N during doze. On Android M that means during the night, on Android N that means as soon as the app is in background, it can’t send notifications. And then there’s the Anti-Fragmentation clause, that forbids OEMs from forking Android. The Anti-Fragmentation clause – which has been used several times by Google against Kindle devices and Tizen – might in fact end up being illegal. The EC has picked the fight mostly because of this.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  I hope it doesn't wind up being illegal. The android security landscape is a disaster, in part, because of fragmentation. OEMs need to stop screwing around with devices.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    That’s the cost of having a choice. If there was only one car, we would have far less to worry about, too. But the laws say that a software manufacturer – Microsoft or Google – can’t coerce OEMs – be they Dell or SAMSUNG – into using their OS on all systems.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      What coercion? Those developers can use AOSP and roll whatever OS suits their fancy. They want to ship Google's code, they play by their rules. Sounds only fair.
      - kuschku 11y ago
        No, they can’t. Google prevents OEMs like SAMSUNG from shipping Kindle devices. If SAMSUNG were to ship a Kindle device, Google would immediately stop licensing them the Play Store for their other devices. This is part of the contract between Google and OEMs, and it contains this specific limitation that an OEM can only either ship Google Play devices, or AOSP devices – but not both at the same time.
bko 11y ago
Don't forget Blackberry! BlackBerry CEO Wants Legislators To Make Developing BlackBerry Apps Mandatory [0] [0] http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/21/blackberry-wut/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/21/blackberry-wut/

mrkgnao 11y ago

The title reads like a cryptic crossword clue.

bearcobra 11y ago

I'm curious to see if the argument made in the article holds water in court. Do the examples of other services winning in messaging, music, social, & storage out weight the App Store and search dominance. Or will the case be about the limits placed on phone manufacturers, not consumers, making all of it moot.

abritinthebay 11y ago
It's not about limiting consumers actions it's about limiting consumer choice in the market place. Related but different. The EU actually has a pretty good case tbh, though I doubt it'll lead to very much. Google wants to have the closed control that Apple does (because they want to control the software) but wants to tout their difference in "openess" because they needed that to sell hardware (which they profoundly suck at at scale). Now they've got better at the hardware (see, Nexus lines) they want to slowly choke off competition. This has been obvious for years but there was very little to be done about it other than companies moving away from Android (which isn't really practical short to medium term) or some kind of governmental play - which this is. Now... will the EU win? Possibly, it's not a slam dunk, but it could lead to small - but important - changes in how Google has to play the game.
- bduerst 11y ago
  Except this isn't about consumer control. The EU anti-trust suit is based on licensing for the proprietary Google Play app, which requires Google Search to be bundled by manufacturers that want to install Play. Android is open sourced, the Google Play services are not, and they're not required to run Android. Consumers can install/uninstall anything they want. Manufacturers can preinstall anything they want, just that if the license to preinstall the Play app they need to preinstall Search.
  - abritinthebay 11y ago
    > Except this isn't about consumer control. I know...? I said exactly that..?

pg_is_a_butt 11y ago

so, they shut out competitors, but it was hard for them to do it? hardly.

_stephan 11y ago

An alternate point of view by the Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21697193-european-commission-going-after-google-againthis-time-better-chance http://www.economist.com/news/business/21697193-european-com...

bduerst 11y ago
Tl;dr: Android is open sourced, Google Play services are not. Licenses for manufacturers to preinstall the proprietary Google Play app require them to also to preinstall Google search. Android manufacturers aren't forced to preinstall Play services. Users can still uninstall either Play, search, or any number of the preinstalled manufacturer apps (which aren't locked by manufacturers), right? How is this different than if Google made just one app for play and search?
- nugget 11y ago
  In tightly controlled ecosystems the default state is effectively what most consumers will keep and use. This is sometimes informally called the power of default. Entire billion dollar markets can rise and fall based on something as simple as an opt-out versus opt-in policy. It's a little like that Supreme Court ruling that said ''the power to tax is the power to destroy''. The power of default is not much different especially when you control the entire underlying OS. Anti-trust regulators are right to focus on what these default settings are.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    So is Apple preinstalling iTunes as the default music service antitrust too?
    - nugget 11y ago
      If Apple had vast majority of market share, pre-installed iTunes, integrated iTunes functionality throughout the OS so that it had more intuitive prominence than other competing services, then yes, that would be close to the definition of antitrust as I understand it (using dominant control in one market to create or maintain dominant control in a second market). This is what Microsoft was penalized for, appropriately, with Windows and the browser market.

mentaat 11y ago

"Google Plus is now all but dead". Hearing that a lot but I don't see any evidence of that. Where is the proof?

Apofis 11y ago

Why is it always Google? Apple's iOS is far more locked down and I don't ever see them in the sights of anti-trust lawsuits.

panarky 11y ago
Yes, it seems that Google is held to a completely different standard than their competitors. Google open-sourced Android, and now competitors like Amazon build Fire Phones and Fire Tablets. Can you imagine the same openness from Apple or Microsoft? Google allows alternatives to the Google Play Store like Amazon AppStore. Apple and Microsoft are locked down. Apple won't let you create an app that competes with Apple services, but Google does. Apple and Microsoft default their maps and other apps. Microsoft defaults Bing as the search engine on mobile and desktop, and Apple requires a billion-dollar payment to default Google search on iOS. Where is the anti-trust action against Google's competition? Think about why there might be a double standard here.
millstone 11y ago
Antitrust law is concerned with anti-competitive contracts and agreements. Apple controlling what Apple ships on Apple hardware is fine. Google controlling what Samsung ships on Samsung hardware is not so fine.
- panarky 11y ago
  The point of the article is that Samsung is free to load up its phones with dozens of apps that compete directly with Google. Samsung can change the default search engine to Bing, they can pre-install Facebook, Whatsapp and Skype. They can make is so you can't uninstall Facebook if you don't want it. Seems like a much more competitive market than the Apple or Microsoft mobile ecosystems.
  - millstone 11y ago
    > The point of the article is that Samsung is free to load up its phones with dozens of apps that compete directly with Google. OEMs must give the Google apps very prominent placement, including a Google search bar on the home screen, and in many cases set them as the default. But this isn't at the heart of the objection. The strongest point is that Google forbids its licensees from shipping alternative versions of Android. This means that Samsung cannot offer consumers a choice between (say) GoogleAndroid and Cyanogen. > Samsung can change the default search engine to Bing Google requires OEMs to set Google as the default search engine, according to the EU complaint. I don't know if that's true; I speculate it's not true for Samsung (which has negotiating leverage) but is true for smaller OEMs. > Seems like a much more competitive market than the Apple or Microsoft mobile ecosystems. No way. A true competitive market would be a bunch of Apple-like firms, independently building whatever products they want. Instead we have all but a handful of OEMs beholden to Google, under contracts which oblige them to do things Google's way, and no other way ("anti-fragmentation"). The article makes a case that consumers aren't being harmed by this, because OEMs make terrible software. This may be true. But it's still anti-competitive.