9 ms·
The Wikipedia article on this case is much more informative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Unio
by pdw 8y ago
The Wikipedia article on this case is much more informative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google
> In their Statement of Objections, the European Commission accused Google of the breach of EU antitrust rules in three ways:
> - by requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;
> - by preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
> - by giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.
- ravenstine 8y ago> by requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google Chrome browser It's like 1998 all over again.
- mankash666 8y agoI'd argue not. Microsoft required payment for licensing the OS, Google doesn't. It's patently unfair for Google the invest in most of the R&D got everything Android and not even expect a return.
- polskibus 8y agoNot requiring a license fee makes it worse for competitors than a paid license fee, doesn't it? Going for the free version is one of the strongest business moats, only the richest companies can afford that.
- detaro 8y agoGoogle requires a fee for the OS customers expect: Android with Google Play. (and has every right to do so!) Both are bundling other products with it, that's the problem.
- pjmlp 8y agoExcept for the part that they forgot to pay Sun for.
- bitmapbrother 8y agoWhat's the going rate for open source header files?
- pjmlp 8y agoCurrently the rate is around 172 euros. https://www.iso.org/standard/57853.html https://www.iso.org/standard/57853.html
- innocentoldguy 8y agoMicrosoft got in trouble for giving IE away for free and embedding it in their OS so customers couldn't get rid of it and choose another option.
- fifnir 8y agoThey get their return, they don't need to force it down our throat.
- mankash666 8y agoWhat exactly is being forced down your throat again? Device makers can fork and build whatever version of Android they want (like Amazon does with Fire tablets). So who's tying you to a chair and forcing Google down you?
- cornholio 8y agoGoogle. > - by preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
- mankash666 8y agoBaseless. Amazon has sold non-Google Android for almost a decade. Google's abdroid has 0% penetration in China
- Wohlf 8y agoI cannot for the life of me understand how Apple's ironclad control over the hardware, OS, and App store isn't considered vastly worse than this.
- ko27 8y agoIt's actually really simple. In the EU Apple doesn't have that much market share to be consider for antitrust laws.
- Wohlf 8y agoFair enough.
- stefan_ 8y agoIt doesn't even matter. If you start forcing other companies into contracts that say they may not use competitor Xs products, you will have an antitrust case on your ass regardless. And we have seen the same happen with Apples bookstore. They obviously weren't a monopoly in the past, then or now, but they started drawing up contracts with multiple companies that were meant to be competitors and facilitating collusion between them. That is always an antitrust violation.
- mig39 8y agoApple is not a monopoly. You don't like Apple, you go elsewhere. In much of Europe, Android is the only choice.
- Wohlf 8y agoEverywhere I have been the options are Android, iPhone, or a feature phone. Are there actually places where the other two are not an option? Another commenter said it seems to be that Apple just doesn't have enough market share for anti-trust rules to kick in, which makes sense but also seems unsatisfying. A market dominating company being anti-consumer doesn't seem any worse than a smaller competitor being very anti-consumer, especially when that smaller competitor seems to be making much more money from their practices.
- reitanqild 8y agoWondering why they haven't mentioned (ab)using their dominant position in search and advertising to push their desktop browser?