34 ms·

European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case

• vivan 8y ago
  Can anyone concisely explain what this fine is for, and also why the same wouldn't apply to Apple for iOS? It seems to be a rehash of the issue that Microsoft faced when it only gave you Internet Explorer on install. But iOS comes with only Safari on install, and forces you to use Apple's various apps - how is this any different?
  • evook 8y ago
    > how is this any different It's not. Be Patient.
  • rjvbk 8y ago
    Apple does not have a <s>monopoly</s> dominant position. In my country I think they are like 10% of the market. You can't abuse your dominant position if you don't have one.
    • vivan 8y ago
      In my country, iOS are more than 50% of the market. I haven't been able to find any EU-wide numbers though, which are the important ones in this case.
      • rjvbk 8y ago
        http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe It gets much worse depending on the country: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/italy http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/italy http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/spain http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/spain
        • Fnoord 8y ago
          Richer countries naturally have more iOS devices because those are more expensive. With Android, you pay with your privacy. Unless you opt out of GMS, but that's an all of nothing deal.
        • inapis 8y ago
          Is this website seriously running off of a raspberry pi? I’m getting a 404 page with Apache/2.4 (Raspbian) in the metadata.
      • ar0 8y ago
        Well, the European Commission alleges that Android has an 80% market share in Europe: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm (fifth paragraph) But for this case, they are using a definition that makes Android even more dominant: they allege that Google restricts device manufacturers' freedoms. And from a device manufacturer point of view, Android has a 90+% market share of "licensable smart mobile operating systems", with "licensable" being key: as a device manufacturer, you cannot use iOS, so that doesn't count if you buy into this line of argument: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm
        • vivan 8y ago
          That is fair enough - though is there really any competition in that space? Even if Google did nothing, I imagine most manufacturers would continue using Android as there isn't much choice. I don't actually know any mobile OS other than iOS and Android variants. Blackberry, Nokia (?) and Windows for mobile are all pretty much dead at this point.
          • detaro 8y ago
            It's also about giving the manufacturers more freedom in what "flavor" of Android they ship, e.g. currently Google forbids them from making both devices with Android with all the Google stuff and devices without it, or devices only using some of the package.
            • vatueil 8y ago
              Seems kinda perverse. After all, you can't fork Windows, macOS, or iOS at all. Why should making Android more open than the competition lead to worse punishment?
              • yorwba 8y ago
                It's not making Android more open that leads to the punishment here. Google made Android more open when they open-sourced AOSP; they made it more closed when they prohibited manufacturers from actually forking Android in a way Google doesn't like. The behavior that is punished is the use of their market power to negate the open-sourcing, not the open-sourcing itself.
      • jlpom 8y ago
        According to Statcounter [1]: France: 71% Germany: 70,8% Europe: 74% [1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe
      • tiatia123 8y ago
        What country is this?
        • piotrkubisa 8y ago
          Probably UK, because iOS marketshare in UK is very close to 50% (52% Android, 46% iOS [1]). For curious, in some countries there is much more Apple iPhone users than Android users, like in Liechtenstein (58% [2]) or Monaco (64% [3]). [1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-kingdom http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-king... [2]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/liechtenstein http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/liechtenste... [3]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/monaco http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/monaco
          • rjvbk 8y ago
            Liechtenstein has a population of 37,666 and Monaco has a population of 37,308. I mean, they are "countries", but...
    • ekianjo 8y ago
      Android does not have a monopoly either. You can buy an iPhone.
      • rjvbk 8y ago
        I used the wrong term, I meant "dominant position". Google has one with Android and they abuse it. That's why they are being fined.
      • littlecranky67 8y ago
        A monopoly is not defined by the possiblity that there are other products available for purchase on the market, but rather how many products have been purchased and are in use. Using your reasoning, Microsoft could never have had a monopoly on Windows because you always could have bought a Mac.
        • repolfx 8y ago
          That latter definition is in fact a reasonable counter-argument to Windows being a monopoly (people did buy Macs), and that's why Microsoft got in trouble for the deals they cut to try and crush Netscape, not for making a more popular OS than Apple did. You can't define a monopoly as "your competitors aren't popular" because otherwise it'd be illegal to invent new product categories, as at the start you'd be the only player in the new space. You can't define it that way for another reason: it punishes success.
          • SparklingCotton 8y ago
            Monopolies are not illegal, so your argument is irrelevant.
          • pbhjpbhj 8y ago
            FWIW the definition of a patent is a "time-limited monopoly on working an invention", so all new products that are patented are monopolies by definition. As the sibling comment rightly says, monopolies are acceptable. But, as the EU clearly point out, a greater onus is put on monopolies to avoid abusing their monopoly power.
    • antr 8y ago
      This fine isn't about monopoly. But Google: - has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store); - made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and - 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").
      • simongray 8y ago
        Yes, it is. Straight from the press release: > Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets. > Google has engaged in three separate types of practices, which all had the aim of cementing Google's dominant position in general internet search.
        • antr 8y ago
          You said it "Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules." It isn't about a monopoly, it's about abusing power.
          • zaroth 8y ago
            It’s about abusing the power of a monopolistic position in the market. The power being abused is the monopoly power. If you don’t have a monopoly and do things your partners/competitors don’t like, they can’t complain that you are abusing a dominant market position to get away with it. There’s nothing wrong with bundling. But when you have a monopoly on the market bundling suddenly is wrong and abusive even if it’s the right thing for your end users. So we see time and again monopolies are knee-capped in the market and face these absurd fines, in the name of fairness and competition. I have no doubt that some monopolies leverage their market dominance for some pretty atrocious dealings. I personally see nothing wrong with Google licensing the optional (but extremely popular) Google Play services such that it requires Google Search and Chrome along with it. If they were unrelated then the experience of Google Play Services would be identical with or without the other pieces (Chrome and Search). I don’t use Android so I can’t say for sure, but I’m quite confident that the overall experience suffers without all three pieces together.
    • minusSeven 8y ago
      The law should be the same for all companies and should not depend on which companies are monopolies.
    • greggman 8y ago
      if we are comparing to the microsoft case apple does have a monopoly. microsoft was not found to have a monopoly on computers in general. it was specifically found to have a monopoly on intel based computers. Apple has a monopoly on A9, A10, A11 based computers. A 100% monopoly
  • muricafirst 8y ago
    apple doesn't have market dominance, thats the claim, anyway this fine is stupid, see my comment about how volkswagen only paid 1 billion to germany for its emissions scam, europe is just trying to siphone money from american tech companies.
    • arghwhat 8y ago
      Apples and oranges. Different violations, different markets, different market shares and different revenues make for different fines.
      • muricafirst 8y ago
        ur telling me u genuinely think volkswagen emissions scandal was less significant?
        • kryptiskt 8y ago
          You couldn’t even bother to read enough of the headline to figure out it was Volkswagen and not Volvo?
    • the_duke 8y ago
      Let's talk about 'stupid' again once US tech giants start paying appropriate taxes on their profits generated in Europe without siphoning them off.
      • muricafirst 8y ago
        how about correcting the tax laws then, this is a bad way to try and get the money from them...
        • laumars 8y ago
          This isn't a revenue generating scheme. This is a fine for bad business practices. This might shock you, but not every country in the world believes companies should have free reign to do whatever the fuck they like. It's not like deregulation is a requirement for capitalism. The real problem here is the minority of Americans who live with their heads firmly up their own arses and don't have any concept of the wider world - of which America is literally only one entity amongst a great many of others. You assume that everyone is envious (which, by the way, is the correct term. "Jealousy" - as you described it in one of your other comments - doesn't refer to possessions) of America when in actual fact we just want American businesses to play by the same rules as European businesses do when those companies do business in Europe. You're not being singled out because we have the same expectation for companies of all nationalities; regardless of the continent they reside. It just so happens that American businesses are some of the worst offenders (possibly due to your culture of anything goes in business?). However as you have also pointed out, European companies do also get penalised when they break the rules too. So you aren't a special case. But honestly, given the stunts Boeing pulls, your various business lobby groups that affect overseas legislation (eg the breast milk vs formula was), the recent changes to trade relations Trump has made, and all the other numerous indiscretions America make to put their own industries first; you are hardly in the position to take the moral high ground when it comes to international business relations.
  • hrktb 8y ago
    A better source: > The European Commission has accused Google of abusing its Android market dominance by bundling its search engine and Chrome apps into the operating system. Google has also allegedly blocked phone makers from creating devices that run forked versions of Android. https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-eu-fine-antitrust https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-e... > How is it any different Apple doesn’t have a dominent search engine to push down the throat of device makers. They also don’t have an iOS consortium nor do work with other makers, so there is no bullying makers into doing what they want “or else”. As others pointed out Apple is not in a majority position in the first place, but this fine is mainly bound to how the search engine and google suitr services come in the picture, and not on android on its own.
    • repolfx 8y ago
      That first claim is clearly wrong though. Firstly, Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe and their devices can be bought everywhere. Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google, notably the Amazon phones and tablets. They weren't that popular with consumers but that's not Google's fault: it just means consumers highly value the additional services Google provides.
      • ge0rg 8y ago
        Maybe the problem with the Google deal is that it's exclusive: if you want to make one device that's Google approved and contains the "highly valued" services, you are disallowed by the compliance contract to make other Android devices that are not Google-approved.
        • blub 8y ago
          Yep, that is a big problem. If company A has launched an official Android device, and company B goes to A and asks them to build a totally unrelated Android-based (but not Android proper) device for them, A is not allowed to do that by Google.
  • saas_co_de 8y ago
    It is for having a dominant market position in mobile phones (90% global market share) and abusing the market position in mobile phone operating systems to favor their other products. Apple does not have a dominant market position and does not give away iOS for free. Making Android free is an anti-competitive practice because it inhibits the formation of a competitive market for mobile phone operating systems. Because Google's practice of making Android free inhibits competition they are not allowed to exploit the lack of competition for profit.
    • SparklingCotton 8y ago
      I don't see this reasoning at all. The fine is because Google is illegally cementing it's position as a dominant search engine through licensing of the android platform. Where is the problem with making Android free?
  • bubblethink 8y ago
    This is more about google forcing OEMs to bundle a ton of google apps and making them default in order to get google play services. If you are an OEM, you have to accept the all or nothing proposition if you want google play. And all OEMs want google play. The android as you know is AOSP + google play services blobs. Nobody sells pure AOSP phones (not counting some small niche players).
  • pdw 8y ago
    From Wikipedia: 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.
    • xg15 8y ago
      My understanding is that the "certain Google proprietary apps" most importantly contain the Play store. Yes, in theory you could install FDroid - however if you, as a manufacturer, don't want to break the "install our app" flows of basically every website, you need the Play store - and therefore you also need to install Chrome, default Google Search and never sell a phone with Lineage OS installed ever again. Not sure if the same licensing also applies to Google Play Services - if yes, this might make it difficult to even run the apps without getting the license, no matter which store is used.
      • cornholio 8y ago
        The margins of the Play Store are huge and it's quite easy to disrupt with a copy cat - the developers will flock to an alternative store with similar functionality and 2% fees. And of course customers. The Play store is the crown jewel and protecting that massive revenue stream is paramount, it could well become the most important software market in the world.
        • beerlord 8y ago
          So a copycat needs: -Developers -Customers -To be able to survive on fees less than it costs for a credit card transaction -To be installed on something better than Android And you call all this easy? ;-)
  • sureaboutthis 8y ago
    I don't get it either with regards to the Microsoft case. You need a browser to start with but you can install any browser available. Android doesn't block Bing, or any other search engine. So what's the problem?
    • SparklingCotton 8y ago
      Yes Google (if that's what you mean by Android) does "block" having Bing as the pre-installed search engine.
      • sureaboutthis 8y ago
        Well, Microsoft "blocks" Google being pre-installed on Windows and everything else so let's fine Microsoft, too.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • cageface 8y ago
    Apple defenders will dismiss market share when comparing Android and iOS and claim that share of profits is all that counts. But they're happy to use market share to justify sanctions against Google. You can't have it both ways folks. The fact is that Apple controls enough of the users that everybody wants that they have at least as much influence as Google does in mobile. That they've chosen to protect their fat profit margins and accumulate the largest pile of corporate cash in history while ignoring customers that can't afford premium devices should not insulate them from similar scrutiny. If the EU wants to preserve any credibility on these issues they should take a hard look at Apple's refusal to allow other browser engines on iOS.
    • SparklingCotton 8y ago
      > If the EU wants to preserve any credibility .. It's the other way around. EU is building credibility that seems to be lacking elsewhere by penalizing anti-competitive behavior.
      • ahartmetz 8y ago
        Due to regulatory capture and states' legitimate self-interest, EU keeps US corporations in check and vice versa. Better than nothing.
    • mustacheemperor 8y ago
      Looking at the comment below enumerating the reasons for the ruling, I don't see any overlap between what Google is being fined for and Apple's business practices. Apple isn't forcing 3rd party OEMs to install Safari on their hardware in order to run Apple apps because Apple makes all their own hardware. iOS is not an open source OS meant to be available to third parties, and Apple doesn't have a search engine to pay carriers to mandate. >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; >preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code; >giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.
  • squarefoot 8y ago
    This one is much worse because although Microsoft tried to get complete control of the PC platform many years ago, they never managed to prevent people from installing other operating systems on their PCs. Had Microsoft the same power Google has now on mobile platforms, I would be writing this post using Windows 10 instead of Debian because Linux as well as *BSD and others would either not exist or could never properly work due to lack of OSS drivers which is by far the #1 plague in the mobile world. Google monopoly has very little to do with Chrome bundling and a lot with hardware being kept tight closed to kill any competition: the day we have OSS drivers is the day we can have other OSes (which have been already written) fully working; that will allow also software to be fully usable, creating more competition Google will have to respond to, hopefully with more openness and quality. Before someone replies that drivers have nothing to do with browser bundling, think about how could Google force you to install anything or use any of their services if your underlying OS and surrounding environment didn't depend on anything from them because it wasn't even Android. Example: https://www.gnome.org/gnome-3/ https://www.gnome.org/gnome-3/
    • dlp211 8y ago
      I'm trying to understand your point. Google has nothing to do with Qualcomm keeping their hardware drivers proprietary. What am I missing?
      • squarefoot 8y ago
        Google monopoly is a byproduct of proprietary hardware/firmware, that's what a lot of people is missing. Going every time after this or that corporation because it built a monopoly is useless when trying to build a monopoly is everyone's untold ultimate goal in the current economic system; we would better spend our energies making sure that nobody can't even attempt to build a monopoly, and open specs hardware would be one step in this direction. I can understand telcos wanting a closed layer before the radio section to prevent people from tampering with cell service, but to me everything else has to be open.
    • mikelward 8y ago
      Binary driver blobs exist because of IP concerns of the hardware suppliers, particularly the camera, fingerprint, and modem. The fact those parts are closed hasn't stopped people releasing custom ROMs. Google and Sony even help you do this. https://developers.google.com/android/drivers https://developers.google.com/android/drivers https://developer.sony.com/develop/open-devices/ https://developer.sony.com/develop/open-devices/
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • tmalsburg2 8y ago
    Relevant statement and partial answer to your question by DuckDuckGo: https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1019562507294461953 https://twitter.com/DuckDuckGo/status/1019562507294461953
    • SOLAR_FIELDS 8y ago
      Man, some of these could be Corp-explained away by some savvy PR person but why the heck would you buy a URL that is like your competitor and point it to you, other than to deliberately stifle competition? I would like to hear the response from Google on that one.
  • delecti 8y ago
    Google is imposing terms on third party manufacturers. What third parties are selling devices with iOS?
    • brainwad 8y ago
      Apple is simply imposing such onerous terms that no OEMs can sell iOS. But because (as a result of this anti-competetive behaviour) their market share in the OS market is low, it doesn't break the law.
      • delecti 8y ago
        Not selling something isn't "such onerous terms". They're allowed to not sell their software for others to use.
        • brainwad 8y ago
          Then why isn't Google allowed to not sell their software to others to use? Google doesn't want to let Amazon have the Play Store without following conditions, they should have that right.
          • delecti 8y ago
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
            • brainwad 8y ago
              I am arguing there is no real difference between tying, and not selling to 3rd parties at all and only using your product in a vertically integrated business. Vertical integration amounts to tying with extremely onerous requirements that only the selling company (i.e. Apple) can meet.
              • delecti 8y ago
  • sjwright 8y ago
    > why the same wouldn't apply to Apple for iOS? Microsoft got into trouble because they forced companies like Dell and HP to make their products feature Internet Explorer. Google is getting into trouble now because they're forcing companies like Samsung and LG to make their products feature Chrome. Apple is not getting into trouble now because Apple is not forcing Apple to make their products feature Safari. Obviously iOS does feature Safari, but Apple was free to make that choice. There is no OEM here being bullied.
    • kyle-rb 8y ago
      >There is no OEM here being bullied. Right, only the end users are harmed, as it should be.
      • sjwright 8y ago
        A red herring. Every product on the market—from toasters to lawnmowers—contain numerous choices made by the product manufacturer and not by the end user.
  • zavi 8y ago
    It's a fine for being an American tech giant.
  • rjmunro 8y ago
    iOS is much worse. You aren't even allowed to install another browser. "Chrome" and "Firefox" on iOS are not real Chrome and Firefox, they are wrappers around Safari's webkit engine.
  • gandutraveler 8y ago
    Why couldnt Google argue that manufacturers can fork andoid project and disable Google apps ?
• muricafirst 8y ago
  europe is just jealous of america's success... For the record volkswagen only paid 1.2 bn to germany for its emissions scam https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/business/volkswagen-emissions-germany-fine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/business/volkswagen-emiss...
  • arghwhat 8y ago
    Volvo is a much smaller company with much less revenue serving a small market share of a smaller market. With fines based partly on revenue, this difference makes perfect sense. Unlike your comment.
    • mongol 8y ago
      The link is about Volkswagen, not Volvo, even.
      • arghwhat 8y ago
        I was also rather confused, as I had not heard of Volvo having been caught, but I did not feel like engaging that deeply.
• yeleti 8y ago
  Paywalled. Small article. Copy pasting entire article as comment. ----------- BRUSSELS—The European Union plans to hit Alphabet Inc.’s Google with a record antitrust fine of €4.34 billion ($5.06 billion) on Wednesday, according to an official familiar with the matter, a decision that could loosen the company’s grip on its biggest growth engine: mobile phones. A formal decision—which would mark the EU’s sharpest rebuke yet to the power of a handful of tech giants—is set to be taken during Wednesday morning’s meeting of EU commissioners following a presentation by competition chief Margrethe Vestager, according to the person. No discussion of the decision is expected, the official said. The EU’s antitrust regulator has been looking into whether Google had abused the dominance of its Android operating system, which runs more than 80% of the world’s smartphones, in order to promote and entrench its own mobile apps and services—particularly the company’s eponymous search engine. Google, which can appeal, has rejected the EU’s case since the bloc issued formal charges over two years ago. Google says Android, which is free for manufacturers to use, has increased competition among smartphone makers, lowering the prices for consumers. Google also says the allegation that it stymied competing apps is false because manufacturers typically install many rival apps on Android devices—and consumers can download others. The fine would top the EU’s €2.4 billion antitrust decision against Google just over a year ago. Wednesday’s expected ruling would be the latest in a series of decisions in which the EU has cast itself in the vanguard of a backlash against U.S. tech superpowers, on issues ranging from competition to taxes to privacy. Ms. Vestager has become the face of that battle, arguing that regulators must do more to restore fairness to the digital market. The EU’s executive announced Wednesday morning that Ms. Vestager would give a press conference at 7 a.m. ET. Write to Laurence Norman at laurence.norman@wsj.com
  • akuji1993 8y ago
    Doing god's work, thank you.
• minxomat 8y ago
  To put that into context: > Despite being a record fine, Alphabet generated about the same amount of money every 16 days in 2017, based on the company’s reported annual revenue of $110.9 billion for the year.
  • kryptiskt 8y ago
    They should compare with profits, revenue has costs.
  • ddorian43 8y ago
    Don't you have to compare it with profits ? Also, most of the $$ comes from other places, no ?
  • avar 8y ago
    A fine comes out of your profits, not your revenue. From a Routers[1] source they had $110.9 billion in revenue, but a profit of $12.6 billion. So this is somewhere between a third and half of their global profits. 1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-results/alphabets-earnings-miss-profit-estimates-as-spending-grows-idUSKBN1FL6H4 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-results/alphabet...
    • arghwhat 8y ago
      Variable fines are generally set based on revenue, rather than profits.
      • lostlogin 8y ago
        This method would be very unpleasant for Amazon.
      • close04 8y ago
        Such fines are also recurring if the issue is not rectified. Of course no company that ever had to pay the fine tested this principle :). I'm pretty sure they'll fight it just like Intel is doing.
      • 8y ago
• amelius 8y ago
  Is this a serious fine, or just a slap on the fingers? Can Google just continue their practices after this?
  • close04 8y ago
    They can but it would just invite further action from regulators. Which is why they will comply with the requests (not without a fight) even if just in name. I'm sure there are other ways they can get the same benefit as a monopoly without running afoul of the concrete requirements put in front of them by now.
  • Radle 8y ago
    If a company simply ignores fines, the regulators will assume that they didn't choose high enough fines, since it did not hurt the company enough. They'll schedule another meeting, check whether the company still breaks the rules in the same way and if so impose fines which are a lot more painful. You can expect that to happen way faster and with way less bureaucracy then the initial fine.
    • chii 8y ago
      > If a company simply ignores fines it'd be interesting to imagine how a company could potentially still operate in a hostile country, if said company is only dealing with cyberspace products (such as software/saas). Would they be able to continously ignore any/all rulings, by operating the datacenter, and any payment mechanisms, outside said hostile country?
      • Radle 8y ago
        Yes, the only thing the country can do only block the companies domain in that case. For example in Turkey betting is illegal, turkey will block any bet providers page. But some providers just change their domain regularly.
        • anticensor 8y ago
          In Turkey, betting is under state monopoly (Spor Toto).
• tomhoward 8y ago
  Archive (non-paywall) copy: http://archive.is/JpjEI http://archive.is/JpjEI
  • akuji1993 8y ago
    Doing god's work, thank you.
• obilgic 8y ago
  More than the amount Netherlands contributes every year!
• TekMol 8y ago
  I wonder to what extend this was anticipated by the market. The stock is down about 1%. Not much considering that $5B should be about 1/3 of Googles yearly earnings. On the other hand, 1% of Googles stock is about $8B. From that viewpoint, one might think it has come unanticipated. Then again, stocks rise and fall 1% all the time. So it's hard to read something into it. Is this the same case as reported in January here? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-results/alphabets-earnings-miss-profit-estimates-as-spending-grows-idUSKBN1FL6H4 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-results/alphabet... "Profit fell 35 percent to $12.6 billion because of the tax bill and a separate charge last summer for a $2.7 billion European Union antitrust fine, which is under appeal."
  • kryptiskt 8y ago
    It's not the same, IIRC that was for favoring their own services in search results.
    • TekMol 8y ago
      Thanks. Looks like they are getting used to paying fines as a regular part of their business. Maybe in future earning reports we will see statements like "Legal fines went up 80% YOY from $7B to $12B and we are planning to continue our aggressive spendings in this area to expand our market dominance".
      • close04 8y ago
        When the fines are lower than the expected benefit from your "wrongdoing" then what's the incentive to stop? As a person getting caught stealing/defrauding/etc. you would have to pay restitution and additional fines/time in prison. This is how it should work for businesses to. If the goal is to actually prevent future abuse.
        • lotsofpulp 8y ago
          You would have to record every single conversation to pin intent on specific individuals. This is one big advantage of being concentrated in cities, you can meet face to face with people and discuss things without fear of legal repercussions.
• jaimex2 8y ago
  Can Google just close shop in the EU and ignore the fine? Nothing they provide really mandates they have a physical presence.
  • mraison 8y ago
    GDPR?
  • chrisper 8y ago
    And fire all Google employees in Europe?
  • close04 8y ago
    It's cutting your nose to spite your face. This isn't how business is done. So they would give up tens of billions in revenue per year for a one time comparatively low fine. If Google packs its bags they'll be the ones feeling most of the pain. And such a drastic move would have consequences on any business Alphabet tries to do in the EU over the next decades.
    • thrillgore 8y ago
      After GDPR? I'm seeing the EU as a sizable liability that hands out fines like candy. Blocking them doesn't seem like a crazy idea.
      • detaro 8y ago
        On what data do you base your judgement that GDPR means the EU "hands out fines like candy"?
        • close04 8y ago
          If anything they're not handing out enough fines. Companies just pay them and keep doing shady business because it's financially more sound to keep abusing the system. Paying the fine is cheaper than correcting their business practices.
        • 8y ago
• amelius 8y ago
  I'm wondering how such a fine actually comes into existence. How does some EU committee get the idea that Google is anti-competitive here? Is this the result of lobbying by competitors? Can we somehow post the EU about instances where companies are being anti-competitive, and get them to take action somehow? Given the enormous amount of anti-competitive behavior we see every day in the news, I can't help but feel this fine seems a bit arbitrary.
  • dao- 8y ago
    > Is this the result of lobbying by competitors? Probably in part yes, but the European Commission is also pretty proactive. E.g. if I remember correctly, they reached out to Mozilla to get their take on how MS was bundling IE with Windows, after Opera originally complained about it. This came out of it: https://www.google.com/search?q=browser+choice+screen&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=browser+choice+screen&tbm=is...
    • amelius 8y ago
      > but the European Commission is also pretty proactive. Isn't it a bit late though?
      • dao- 8y ago
        Better late than never, I guess? The question I meant to answer wasn't about timing but about whether the fine is a result of lobbying.
        • eeZah7Ux 8y ago
          > Better late than never, I guess? Not for all the companies and FLOSS projects that have been wiped - or not even started - due to the Google / apple duopoly.
  • rusk 8y ago
    You don't really need lobbying in order to make Google conspicuous. In particular with their creative approaches to accounting. > Is this the result of lobbying? In all likelihood there was almost certainly an element of lobbying, in particular complaints about these business practices which eventually coalesced into some kind of more focused activities. It seems a bit quixotic to blame "competitors". Which competitors exactly? That's the whole premise of abuse of dominant market position.
• cageface 8y ago
  I think this is a mistake and essentially punishing Google for pursuing an open distribution model for Android, without which I doubt it would have emerged as a serious competitor to iOS. We're all a lot better off, even people that use iOS, because there has been real competition in mobile. This is essentially choosing which business models the EU thinks should win.
  • shaqbert 8y ago
    The punishment is not for pursuing an open source distribution model, but by applying undue power in taking back control of the open distribution model.
    • cageface 8y ago
      Google has to somehow recoup the high development costs of Android. Does the EU expect them to develop it as a charity?
    • repolfx 8y ago
      But Apple hasn't been fined in the same way. So apparently if Google had kept Android proprietary, and made their own hardware, they'd be totally OK, even though there'd only be two phone makers left in the world instead of dozens like there is now? I'm sorry but this move is garbage. I am British and I'm so glad the UK is leaving this horrible, success hating farce of a union. Google paid billions to develop Android and then gave it away for free under the Apache license specifically to encourage competition and diversity in the smartphone market. They then added a carrot of some apps and the app store if OEMs agreed not to introduce backwards incompatibilities, to avoid the J2ME problem of a hopelessly forked and buggy platform. If they hadn't done these things, very likely Apple would have wiped out every competitor in existence. The EU is sending a powerful message with this move: keep everything proprietary, pick a high enough price point to price out most poor European countries, and you'll be fine. Build an open ecosystem where competitors target every price point and you'll suddenly find yourself being an involuntary contributing member to the EU's budget. What a great disincentive to build products for the Spanish or German markets.
• bwb 8y ago
  This one frustrated me to read, i think they should have gotten involved sooner and worked with google. Instead they slap a crazy high fee for something that is vague in violation. It does feel a bit like a vendetta here by the EU.
  • rusk 8y ago
    I kind of felt the same about the Apple Tax / Irish Revenue Commissioners thing. On looking into the judgement however it appeared as though both parties actively sought to subvert competition rules under a disingenuous "veil of ignorance". Warning shots had been fired earlier but the practices continued hence the fine. I haven't read into the details of this judgement yet but you may well find similar reasoning therein.
    • oliwarner 8y ago
      That's not a fine against Apple, it's a demand that Ireland corrects past behaviour that has been deemed state aid. While it's certainly Apple's prerogative to play EU states off against each other to get the best deal, it should have been blindingly obvious that what it was getting from Ireland would be, and should be reversed.
      • rusk 8y ago
        The demand was that Apple pay €13B in back taxes. > it should have been blindingly obvious and yet, it took a deep-dive investigation by the commission with a team of specialists to untangle it.
        • oliwarner 8y ago
          The EU's demand was that Ireland collect that tax from Apple. And blindingly obvious to Apple, the benefactor. When somebody says, "Hey come and do your stuff here, we'll only charge you 0.005% corp tax!" you should expect that their wider financial governing body (who is losing out severely because of a deal like that) might have something to say about it.
• burlesona 8y ago
  Nice way to pay for things, fining the crap out of foreign companies.
  • ionised 8y ago
    Be nice if those foreign companies followed the rules. As it is they seem to make very rude guests.
  • Oletros 8y ago
    Yes, foreign companies http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2582_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2582_en.htm https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-telefonica-fine-idUSKBN0FF0PW20140710 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-telefonica-fine-idUSKB...
• cncrnd 8y ago
  This line in the article got to me, "The fine would top the EU’s €2.4 billion antitrust decision against Google just over a year ago." It looks like the EU has created a piggy bank with these regulations on hostage tech corporations. I wonder how much of the large fines is attributed to prosecutors or politicians trying to make a name for themselves. Anyone know how often these record fines hold up on appeal? Edit: Wow, lots of people triggered by this comment. Must be because it's between 4AM and 7AM in the US while being the afternoon in most of Europe. I stand by everything I said. EU regulators shouldn't be able to entitle themsleves to around 40% of Google's yearly profits. If the laws in the EU intended for this then they are backwards and harmful to innovation. That 5 billion dollars could go into life sciences, self driving cars, and a bunch of other stuff that materially improves society. Instead it's going into EU coffers. Google's services add massive value to the world while regulators have done nothing. Fines on Google by the EU total over 7 billion dollars over the last couple of years. Ridiculous, and I'm surprised y'all are trying to justify this cash grab.
  • Radle 8y ago
    "Piggy bank", there is a full process duo law involved. It's not like people come up with "hey we need money, let's fine google". Why would you claim something like that without providing any evidence that this is actually the case?
    • PaulKeeble 8y ago
      There is a consistent theme of American companies breaking European law and getting fined for it going back decades. The EU has a different legal system and you don't just get fined it happens after a long process of attempting to correct behaviour and legal proceedings. The arrogance of Americans to believe their legal system applies everywhere and that any attempts to apply a different one constitutes an attempt to raid the piggy bank is kind of amazing. I wish it wasn't such a prevalent view but you see comments like the one you responded to every single time a fine is levied.
      • cncrnd 8y ago
• therealmarv 8y ago
  History is repeating itself. Only difference is that Google search and Chrome browser is not as bad as MSN and IE in former times. Why Google did not looked on how MS handled that issue when you become the market leader?
  • oblio 8y ago
    Because crime at that level pays and we're talking $$$. The fine is just a slap on the wrist in the overall scheme of things.
    • therealmarv 8y ago
      I somehow doubt it pays more than 5 billion dollars. I mean, even when I had the option I would use Google search and Google Chrome anyway and I think many other people too.
      • oblio 8y ago
        People use defaults. Look up UC Browser and the Samsung Browser. Especially their market share. Regarding potential gains, Android has all but cemented its position as the smartphone OS. Microsoft did the same in 1995 with Windows in the desktop market and it has 90%+ marketshare there, 23 years later. It's very likely it will still dominate the desktop market in 2045. Android will be at least a loss leader for Google for decades to come. And they made $10 billion in profit in 2017 alone (of course not all of it is driven by Android, but you get an impression of the scale).
  • Avamander 8y ago
    I wonder if we're going to see a similar downfall of Chrome as we saw IE's?
    • Scea91 8y ago
      For IE at that time there were obvious superior alternatives. There are no such alternatives to Chrome today, so I do not expect any downfall.
• theBobBob 8y ago
  Very slightly off topic but I actually think how Android handles default apps is the best of both worlds. It comes with very very good default Google Apps that work well together but it is very easy to switch out whatever you want for an alternative. How iOS handles it is the opposite. For their default apps they either straight out not allow competitors, severely limit what their competitors or (if I remember correctly) they even removed apps when a newer iOS added Apple's own version so they were now "competing". I know that anti-trust laws are probably not applicable as Apple does have a dominant position based on total market share, but to me this practice seems far more anti-competitive. Banning competitors seems worse than fully allowing competitors but providing your own as default that can easily be changed.
  • SiempreViernes 8y ago
    Could you please tell me how I can uninstall the default apps, or at least keep them from constantly updating themselves? That half a gig of unwanted apps that just keeps growing itself is pretty annoying.
    • theBobBob 8y ago
      True, that bit is a bit annoying, but again, not being able to switch out or uninstall default apps is much worse than just not being able to uninstall default apps.
    • andyjohnson0 8y ago
      Default apps are often built-in and can't be uninstalled. But you can disable them. See https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2521768 https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2521768 for details. If you do this then it's worth uninstalling any updates to the app first, to free-up some space.
      • petecox 8y ago
        The apps are typically installed to a read-only System partition. With 'root' access, it's possible to remove them via a superuser app or adb - or it used to be the case.
• gonvaled 8y ago
  Great to see this: the USA has been treating the EU very unfairly regarding services.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• mynameisss 8y ago
  Fragment of wikipedia about politics absolutism: According to some political theorists, complete obedience to a single will is necessary to maintain order and security. Android is more secure and ordered the way it is, but in the long term absolutism is a way of slavery and we need the opportuntiy of change and improvement, not slavery.
• DiabloD3 8y ago
  So, according to the EU, it is illegal to open source OS components (thus allowing anyone to use it without further input from Google as long as the license is followed), but then close source other components and the services that drive them, although they are given out for free, but require specific licensing in the contract to distribute said free closed source components and services on their OEM devices, of which the sale of said devices does not earn Google money as they are provided to OEMs and users for free? In addition, said closed source components and services are merely defaults, and you can install anything you want? Example: Bing Search, Cortana with full Android Assistant support, Microsoft Launcher (which has full Bing and Cortana support, just like Pixel Launcher has for Google), and Microsoft Edge. Further Example: TouchWiz, Bixby, Samsung Browser, Samsung App Store, Samsung Pay, Samsung Everything. If there is an AOSP/Google app, Samsung has probably replaced it with a custom app that is not based on the AOSP/Google version and has generally ruined their phones with them. I guess the EU has to fine Microsoft and Samsung too, since they also give away closed source OS components for Android, and they can only be used with Microsoft and Samsung services... even though it is optional to use them and can be replaced with something else. I guess the EU has to fine Apple too, since they do not allow third party components at all, all the way from third party app stores, third party browsers, or anything deemed "overlaps with functionality in iOS (retroactively as well)".
  • frockington 8y ago
    When you've been left out of global growth for decades you get angry and desperate. I imagine the EU continuing down this path
  • Daishiman 8y ago
    Dude you literally did not understand a single word of the ruling.
    • DiabloD3 8y ago
      I did. They tried to make an argument that Google forbids Android OEMs from shipping Google Play on Android without also shipping Google Search, and they can only opt in all of their devices, not only specific ones. In the form I stated, this is true, to get Play you must ship Google Search, and must do so on all of your devices. What is not true, but implied by the EU ruling is that, a) Android (as defined as purely AOSP) is incomplete and unusable without Google apps, b) that other app stores do not exist for Android, c) that other search engines somehow magically don't work on Android. None of those are true. I find it unfortunate that Android does not have higher profile alternative options, but no one else seems to want to put as much effort into their products as much as Google has. Google's actions simply do not meet any reasonable definition of being a monopoly. Google's only action is requiring the entire Google Apps suite shipped on a device as an all-or-none license, it does not require the end user to use them, it does not prohibit the end user from installing others or disabling built in apps, it does not require signing into a Google account to use the device, it does not prevent APK sideloading. And, until recently, Google was not even a phone OEM (and arguably still isn't, as they do not build their Pixels, HTC and LG do), and Pixels are not nearly as popular as Samsung Galaxy S series (which are famous for "ruining" the Android experience by using tons of custom Samsung apps), and LG G and V series, and Motorola phones dominating the mid-tier segment, and China and India being largely Xiamoi, Huawei, and BBK (Oppo, OnePlus, and Vivo). Worldwide, Samsung and BBK are the #1 and #2 phone manufacturers, and they merely use Android as their OS. At what point did the EU have the authority to say Google had a monopoly when they do not sell Android phones in any reasonable capacity.
• throw2016 8y ago
  The absence of competition is a sign a free market is not working as intended. The rules and benefits of free markets ceases to apply. A monopoly is a market failure and requires intervention. Free market advocates are always talking about regulations and the need for free markets but don't seem to care so much about monopolies, outsize profits, the accumulation of market power and its abuse that further impedes the operation of free markets and the billionaires that result.
• known 8y ago
  Share holders, not Google will pay this $5 billion fine
  • anticensor 8y ago
    Google will pay. All subsidiaries of Google are some form of limited-liability partnerships.
• a_imho 8y ago
  Google is a serial offender at this point and we are not even into GDPR territory. It seems these fines might actually be too low if they can't keep Google's hands off the cookie jar.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• antr 8y ago
  I suggest the URL is changed to the official press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
• throw129090 8y ago
  I think Google gave away too much control with Android. By making it open source they let OEMs fork it and make worse versions. Apple exerts much more control and consumers appreciate it. Google controls the Google Pixel and it's considered a real competitor to the iPhone (in terms of user experience).
• cabalamat 8y ago
  If the EU don't want Google or other mobile phone OS providers to do competition-fixing and other shenanigans, they could create their own European mobile phone operating system. They should probably do this anyway, since control of computing platforms and user data within them is fast becoming a major factor both in geopolitics and in business.
• ChildOfChaos 8y ago
  I get the EU is upset that google is usually android to push google search, but that’s the entire reason android exists in the first place, the same with chrome. So why suddenly now? And what is google supposed to do about it? I don’t see how this isn’t a fair business practice, google has invested heavily into the android system for this exact reason.
• innerspirit 8y ago
  Some time ago ArsTechnica did a (very upsetting) article with an overview of all these antitrust practices. Glad to hear something was done about it. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on...
• menegattig 8y ago
  IMHO, antitrust fines/penalties should change from amount of money to some other type of penalty, like temporary market exclusion/block or something, otherwise companies like Google and others can simply use its cash (that's was also made due to the unfair advantage), pay the fine and move on to the next market dominance. They will always have cash to pay, even if the fines are higher and higher. They kind of expect for this in their long term strategic planning.
  • movedx 8y ago
    I reckon companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, $bigCorp, probably calculate the ROI of the venture before executing it. So for example in this case, I wouldn't be surprised if Google calculated a high chance of pocketing $5b and expected (lobbied) to be fined much, much less, leaving them with a big profit anywhere. And if they don't get caught or fined: win.
    • menegattig 8y ago
      Totally agree.
  • r_singh 8y ago
    This makes even more sense with context from Google's deal with Apple to make Google Search the default on iPhones for which it pays $3B. Considering that, $5B doesn't seem to be much of a fine to be literally on the head of most smartphones in the world.
    • archi42 8y ago
      That's hefty. But this does affect all major iPhone markets, not the EU alone. So they probably (maybe. I guess.) only put a fraction of that on the bill.
      • r_singh 8y ago
        It's also worth noting that it's $3B per year that Google pays Apple though. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billion-to-remain-default-search--bernstein.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-apple-3-billio...
• billysielu 8y ago
  link is broken
• appleflaxen 8y ago
  there is a lot of criticism of the EC by the HN community, but I am extremely happy to have some push-back against the oligopoly of Apple, Google, etc. let's do apple, facebook, and amazon next. now if we could only convince comcast to provide services to the EU.... having a small set of companies controlling everything harms all consumers.
  • chii 8y ago
    > I am extremely happy to have some push-back against the oligopoly of Apple, Google, etc....let's do apple, facebook, and amazon next. better yet, force companies to open up their walled gardens. I want phones to be more like PCs, where the device is in full control by the owner. I want the app store be available to be changed without consequence, and/or have multiple competing stores.
    • whateveruser 8y ago
      I believe what you meant to say is the owner is in full control of the device, on PCs.
  • izacus 8y ago
    This literally strengthens Apple because they'll keep shipping services with integrated features (banning competition) while Android devices will be banned from providing the same integrated experience.
    • calcifer 8y ago
      I don't understand why people keep making this argument. It's not about having integrated services. It's about abusing your dominance in one service to force another onto OEMs and consumers. Apple has no market dominance in the EU, so nothing in this ruling is relevant to them.
      • Andrex 8y ago
        <deleted>
• dash101 8y ago
  www.wlchosting.com The web hosting domain registrar
• sqdbps 8y ago
  Right, so Google develops Android at great expense, they release it as an open source project and now they’re supposed to make even less money from it? If you think you see similarities between this fine and the microsoft case you should also consider the differences. For all intents and purposes the market is split 50/50 between Android and iOS, and the fact that Android can be competitive with iOS is largely due to Google’s conditions, as by ensuring quality and consistency they spared Android from the fate of the desktop linux and turned it into a mass market product, not to mention the whole free and open source thing, which is a big deal that is seemingly being brushed aside (what about all the forks?!). In any other context finnig an open source project for antitrust violations is absurd. They keep hitting Google with these record fines as there is no political cost for hammering Google in the EU it’s all profit, they get fawning headlines from an approving press and quench the bloodthirst of the politician there who don’t even try to hide their distaste for US tech firms and Google in particular (try and look up their quotes), they can talk up the benefits of free trade all they want and complain about this tariff or that but there is no denying that much of what the EU does is try and hamstring US tech companies. P.S. A recent indicator as to the political nature of this action, the fine announcement was delayed until after Trump's visit to europe: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust/eu-google-decision-delayed-to-next-week-source-says-as-trump-visits-idUSKBN1JZ295 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust/eu-go...
• sergiotapia 8y ago
  Who cares lol - if this fine is a drop in the bucket compared to the gains they made. They should be fined as a percentage of their gains
  • mtarnovan 8y ago
    > Google must now bring the conduct effectively to an end within 90 days or face penalty payments of up to 5% of the average daily worldwide turnover of Alphabet, Google's parent company. The 2nd paragraph in the press release.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• zmk_ 8y ago
  I find this fine bizarre. Sure, Android is dominating the European markets, but I find it to be a good thing. I am surprised that the EU commission never investigated Apple. I don't know when they stopped doing it, but Apple used to remove apps from their store that were duplicating Apple provided services. I also think that manufacturers have themselves to thank. AOSP used to be quite complete in the old days, but every time Google updates it, it takes ages for the device makers to update their devices (if they do it at all); that's why so much of what makes Android great right now relies on Play Services. It was a move that was welcomed by the consumers/tech journalists.
  • glenndebacker 8y ago
    "Sure, Android is dominating the European markets, but I find it to be a good thing. I am surprised that the EU commission never investigated Apple." You are answering your own question. The problem is that Apple is not under investigation because it has 15% a 20% marketshare and so it's impact is regarded as rather small and not seen as a monopoly. When you have a big share of the pie there are other rules that apply and personally I'm fine with that. When you have 80% of the market it can't be all fun and play.
    • zmk_ 8y ago
      This was not the case when these complaints were originally filled.
    • hesarenu 8y ago
      20% would still be in millions. Those many of users would have little bit less choice.
• XparentX 8y ago
  Amen to that! Finally reality is hitting in!
• archi42 8y ago
  Site is under maintanance, Google Cache link (hahaha): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:europa.... //edit: oh, took only a minute or two :) nice work I really like this point: > [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"). Woaah, if this is dropped, it might entice someone to produce Google-free Android Phones (e.g. with MicroG) WITHOUT sacrificing the "Google pre-installed" Android market. I would buy the Google-Facebook-Other_BS-free variant of your otherwise commercial high-to-mid-end, google-and-other-stuff-infested mobile phone!
  • r_singh 8y ago
    I agree, if dropped, this will motivate big electronics players to release smart phones powered by android that aren't Google infested. Sometimes when I'm in a cynical mood, I feel like my android phone isn't really mine, it's owned by google and exists purely to serve them. This would improve the smartphone market on so many levels. We need a great driver support for AOSP, multiple app stores, community driven updates, so on and so forth to make this new reality. I also feel like Android could play a huge role in IoT if it weren't as Google infested as you call it. PS - site is working fine for me.
    • andrepd 8y ago
      >Sometimes when I'm in a cynical mood, I feel like my android phone isn't really mine, it's owned by google and exists purely to serve them. But this is objectively true, else why would Google spend so much money developing an OS to release for free?
    • mda 8y ago
      This is a funny comment. You can get a samsung infested phone anytime, or Amazon, or any something from China? AOSP is created and being developed by google, calling Google's applications infestation is weird. You can also get an Apple infested (to the very core) phone as well.
• endorphone 8y ago
  This is a dangerous ruling that pushes the world further into the potential for trade wars by proxy. Contrary to numerous posts- -no, the law isn't "clear". This is an incredibly nuanced situation, and the notion that Google was just overtly flouting (ed: thx sjcsjc) the law is outright nonsense. Google has a huge litany of bad practices (I personally recently switched my daily driver to an iPhone for that reason), but simply saying "Surprise....enormous fine" is ridiculous. -the fine is enormous. Various "well it's only a quarter's earnings across all of Google" are outrageous. Over 6 years Google spent a grand total of $1.1B in all expenses for Waymo, for instance. $5B is an enormous, enormous amount of money for any company. I highly doubt this will be a "pay it and forget it" fine, but is going to ring across all multinationals as a warning.
  • akie 8y ago
    > is going to ring across all multinationals as a warning I'm not sure how that's a bad thing.
    • tajen 8y ago
      Although I’m quite happy my territories have been strong enough to impose $2bn fines in Microsoft and $4bn on Google, especially to defend interoperability and parcel markets, I’m not sure I want the consequences. - Trump could react. He has already denied the WTO, he may disclaim other US-EU treaties farther because of the fines we impose on US companies. - If Android is a monopoly, what about Apple. Do we want more competition in Apple hardware and shipped software? - Google wanted to have a uniform Android experience across all devices, for better readability across customers. Now will I recommend Android to my mother if the EU said it should be able to be shipped with all Google apps are replaced with an inferior Samsung app (e.g. the Samsung app store) ? Of course Google could publish a “Google experience” and an “OEM Android” version so we know that the OEM version gives us a crap device, but OEM is the kind of things that killed the Windows experience for most users.
  • Dayshine 8y ago
    Let's read the law: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E102&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... >Article 102 >Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. >Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: >b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers >d)making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts Ok, so, Google said "You can't use Google Play unless you force users to have Google Search installed". How is that not clearly breaching d? Then they said "You can't use Google Play if you try to help develop any android forks." How is that not clearly breaching b? >but simply saying "Surprise....enormous fine" is ridiculous They've had at least two years notice, so could have reduced their fine by complying when they were first warned. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm The article literally warns about the exact things they're still doing.
• swebs 8y ago
  >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_Windows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows
  • JimmaDaRustla 8y ago
    Does it not sound hypocritical to sue a corporation for pre-installing software (Microsoft installing IE on Windows) and also suing another corporation for not allowing software to be pre-installed? I also wonder how they come up with the multi-billion dollar values? How does that massive amount of money actually help repair whatever "economical damage" that was inflicted by not having some sort of app pre-installed on a device?
    • jhasse 8y ago
      > How does that massive amount of money actually help repair whatever "economical damage" that was inflicted by not having some sort of app pre-installed on a device? By creating an incentive for Google (and other corporations) not to do it again.
    • Daishiman 8y ago
      This is a complete non-sequitur.
    • DenisM 8y ago
      The question is whether manufacturers had a choice, and the problem is that they did not because monopoly. Massive fines discourage monopolistic behavior, if nothing else.
      • AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > Massive fines discourage monopolistic behavior, if nothing else. The problem is businesses may take it as a signal that the EU is against foreign businesses rather than against monopolistic practices, in which case the thing being deterred is doing business in the EU rather than monopolistic practices. To show otherwise they would have to levy equally large fines against local businesses engaged in the same sort of practices, which they haven't and likely won't. If they really wanted to signal discouragement of monopolistic behavior rather than a cash grab they would be ordering specific conduct rather than excessive fines. For example, if the issue is that they promoted Google Chrome in an unacceptable way, prohibit them from distributing Google Chrome in the EU for five years. And then do the same thing to Microsoft just to be even-handed, because they're still bundling their browser with Windows. And likewise with Apple and Safari. Let everyone use Firefox for five years and see how much browser bundling happens after that.
• frockington 8y ago
  I guess this is one of way finally getting Tech Revenue in Europe. Might have been easier and less alienating if they just created something instead
• yAnonymous 8y ago
  That's for Öffi. When Google remove free apps that are used by millions of users from the play store for weeks, because one of their own automated tests fails, such fines can't come soon enough.
• luispedrocoelho 8y ago
  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 of effective competition in the important mobile sphere", but I fear this will mean that cheap Android phones will have a shitty OEM-branded webbrowser and some random search engine link.
  • DenisM 8y ago
    Yes some phones will be junk, but is up to the consumers to chose, not up to monopolists.
    • luispedrocoelho 8y ago
      It's not clear to me if google is allowed to demand that non-google app phones not be called Android or if that would also be considered anti-competitive. If they must allow Android branded phones that do not come with google apps, then the EC is making it harder for consumers to choose by disallowing the normal use of a brand to signal what it is that you are buying when you buy something. People may buy an Android cheap phone thinking that they are getting what is now an Android phone and end up with a shittier product. Under a normal market, these OEM-branded phones would be sold as "ShitPhone OS 12.0" and it'd be clear that you have the option between paying slightly more for Android, a lot more for iOS or go with ShitPhone 12.0
• kyrra 8y ago
  Google's response to the ruling: https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/android-has-created-more-choice-not-less/ https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/andro...
  • Dayshine 8y ago
    Oh wow, the arrogance they show with that "It's easy to replace an app" video. Yes, it is, which is why the EU commission have a whole section on explicitly why "default install" is still anti-competitive.
    • mtgx 8y ago
      > "It's easy to replace an app" Also, I don't think all Google apps can be uninstalled. Either way, I've certainly seen apps from other OEM partners that can be removed. That should outright be illegal within the EU. All apps that aren't strictly necessary for the functioning of the case operating system should be uninstallable.
      • Dayshine 8y ago
        The gif shows them removing the shortcut.
      • brainwad 8y ago
        A browser has to be installed on Android so that embedded web views work properly. Similar to how IE has to be installed on Windows.
        • Dayshine 8y ago
          Yes, which is fine. The ruling was because Google say it must be Chrome, and cannot be Firefox.
    • n1231231231234 8y ago
      it's certainly far from trivial to remove the search bar at the top of the home screen. i tried once, it broke android, and i had to reset the entire OS. but, tbf, the entire process did take <1 minute
• mhkool 8y ago
  The European law that was used to fine Google is old and Google was warned since many years ago Microsoft was fined because it used its powers to force Internet Explorer to be the only pre-installed browser on Windows. It seems that Google knowingly broke the law.
• Xenos_Ender 8y ago
  This infuriates me. This is predatory and wrong. It blows my mind how many people justify the EU's actions.
• Proven 8y ago
  Never mind. I'm sure it's all gonna be spent on good causes!
• jrockway 8y ago
  What about Apple here? I'd like to release a phone with a fork of iOS and the App Store, but I'm guessing they won't let me.
• readhn 8y ago
  Is google too big now and may have to be broken down? Is having someone as big as google a good thing for the rest of us? Would society, economies etc benefit from google broken down into several smaller independent companies?
  • tylerl 8y ago
    One money-making company (ads) and dozens of money-losing ones? No, you would simply cease to have Android, cease to have maps, cease to have docs, etc. That's not better for anyone (except maybe Apple and Microsoft).
• loourr 8y ago
  This is crazy. It's like if Android wasn't open source at all this wouldn't be an issue. But because it is open source they're being punished.
  • tlamponi 8y ago
    False. Windows isn't open source and they got quite the same reacction with the accusation of using their monopoly to manipulate users into using internet explorer, thus resulting in a windows version with an initial browser choice when starting first. I don't know how much they were fined though...
    • anderber 8y ago
      So really Apple should also get a similar fine since you can't install any other default browser or map.
      • loourr 8y ago
        It's worse than that. You can't even install windows when you buy one of their computers!
• nxoxn 8y ago
  They will attack Google for bundling Google services with their OS and yet all I want is stock Android free from OEM apps (Samsung please).
  • mattlondon 8y ago
    Yeah I laughed at this idea too - the stock Android install that is free of any bloatware or dubious OEM-replacements for things like gmail or chrome or the play store or google photos is what a lot of consumers want, yet Google is getting fined by the EU for basically trying to enforce that. <shrug>
  • njoro 8y ago
    That is essentially what Android One is.
• phront 8y ago
  It seems that it would be better for Google and Apple if Nokia has survived with its own smartphones and OS.
• stevespang 8y ago
  Deutsche Bank agrees $7.2bn penalty with US regulators - - Money laundering and mortgage backed securities, 2016 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38412816 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38412816 VW Pays $25 Billion for 'Dieselgate', 2018 http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/volkswagen-vw-emissions-scandal-penalties/ http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/volkswagen-vw-emissions-scanda... Europeans are just getting revenge for fines like above
• raarts 8y ago
  This is part of the power/money struggle between huge corporations and governments. Big corporations often succeed in avoiding taxes [1][2], and regularly pit states or countries against each other to get the highest tax benefit [3]. Governments really don't like that, but often there's not a lot they can do. Except for banding up in something like the EU, and using that combined power to strike back. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/google-s-dutch-sandwich-shielded-16-billion-euros-from-tax https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/google-s-... [2] https://itep.org/amazon-inc-paid-zero-in-federal-taxes-in-2017-gets-789-million-windfall-from-new-tax-law/ https://itep.org/amazon-inc-paid-zero-in-federal-taxes-in-20... [3] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/09/07/could-your-state-land-50-000-amazon-jobs-headquarters-contest-kicks-off/641276001/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/09/07/could-your-st...
• ghosterrific 8y ago
  The only monopolies are the ones created by gov't. Another shakedown of Google cuz "market abuse". What the fuck is market abuse? They offered a superior product than their competitors. And we bought it. Politicians wanting their 5B cut. Shakedown
• matz1 8y ago
  So sad that EU tech company can't compete with google they have to resort to extortion.
• jplayer01 8y ago
  ITT Americans don't care about companies (especially American ones) that abuse their positions as monopolies.
  • TheArcane 8y ago
    It's scary how all top comments are essentially pointing out how unfair it is for Google. This is the tech version of people starting a $100M GoFundMe for Kylie Jenner to reach a net worth of $1B.
    • dmix 8y ago
      > This is the tech version of people starting a $100M GoFundMe for Kylie Jenner to reach a net worth of $1B. This is our version of a satirical fundraising campaign by a comedian?
  • Veelox 8y ago
    I do care about companies that abuse their position as a monopoly. I think its probably right that Google gets fined for not allowing companies to sell Android forks. What I have a problem with is that if a company is doing some standard business practice, like paying a different company to exclusively use their product, that is okay when they are a not a monopoly but that suddenly become not okay because they have been successful.
    • ionised 8y ago
      Because a monopoly is a special status that infers special powers and special responsibilities. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand in that.
      • Veelox 8y ago
        >Because a monopoly is a special status that infers special powers and special responsibilities. In principal I have a problem with legally treating a company different if they have 85% market share as opposed to 30%. I am okay with making anti-competitive practices illegal but we should also enforce those on small companies.
• maym86 8y ago
  This is a case of breaking a law where there was clear precedent set by the Microsoft case. Google decided it could get away with it or the cost was worth it. I'm glad the EU stands up to monopolistic practices and doesn't capitulate like in the US. Without large companies suppressing competition who knows how many other choices and products we would have?
  • nojvek 8y ago
    Whatever we say about the EU, it seems they’re keeping US companies in check. Sure GDPR is vague and had Edge cases, but it’s been a huge boon to the world. Thank you EU.
    • mpweiher 8y ago
      > keeping US companies in check Also keeping EU companies in check :-)
      • ebikelaw 8y ago
        If there were any EU tech companies to check, then they would be.
        • TheArcane 8y ago
          So according to you, there are zero European tech companies?
          • deleted 8y ago
            [deleted]
          • Sylos 8y ago
            It was sarcasm, as the monopolies that the USA have shielded for so long, have basically killed off the IT market everywhere. There obviously are European tech companies, but even those are often owned by those US-American megacorps.
    • 8y ago
• Veelox 8y ago
  Personally I feel like the European Commission is going to far and trying to make an example of Google. I think there is a space for antitrust fines for practices but I was it was aimed at practices that are anti-competitive at any size and are only effective because of a dominate market position. With in mind I think only 1 of the 3 feels like that to me. > [Google] has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store); I think this is an acceptable business practice. Saying "If you use one, you have to use the others" is reasonable. We want to provide a consistent experience so you cannot pick and choice which part of the bundle you use. > [Google] made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; I don't see how this is a problem in a business. "Hey, we want to use our app. Here is some money if you agree to only use ours." Seems like a bog standard way of doing business. > [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"). This one I think the Commission has made a good point with this one. This one does hamper competition because you have to choose Android or Android forks. Well, that is an obvious choice because of how big Android is. That is bad for competition and I am okay with Google being fined for it. Overall I disagree with 2/3 of the reasons but I do respect the Commission to make the fines big enough that they hurt so that Google might change behavior.
• TheArcane 8y ago
  It's scary how all top comments are essentially pointing out how unfair it is for Google. This is the tech version of people starting a $100M GoFundMe for Kylie Jenner to reach a net worth of $1B.
• cageface 8y ago
  All it takes is a little thought experiment to see why this doesn't make sense: Let's say Google didn't license Android but instead only sold their own Pixel devices and somehow managed to achieve dominant market share this way. With good marketing and multiple price points this could easily have happened. Google search is the default but users can switch it to something else. This would be fine under the current reading of the law, right? So what this ruling is effectively doing is punishing Google for trying to create an open mobile ecosystem to compete with iOS's closed approach. How is this helpful to consumers? Feels like a lot of recent EU rulings on technology are well intentioned but actually make things worse for consumers by picking favorites and raising barriers to entry.
  • PunchTornado 8y ago
    no, it would not be ok and it owuld still get fined if it was in a dominant position. the only reason Apple doesn't get a fine for iOS is because it doesn't have 80% of the market share. this is the law
  • DenisM 8y ago
    It wouldn’t be ok. You can’t use one monopolistic product to gain advantage in another market. Microsoft was forced to randomize browser selection in Windows, remember?
    • teddyfrozevelt 8y ago
      Microsoft was licensing Windows to other companies, in this scenario, Android is only on Google devices.
• yohann305 8y ago
  What scares me about this huge fine is that someone else than Google is going to have to pay for it. Maybe the stock shareholders are the ones paying the price or maybe it will be us, the end consumers. Expect pricey freemium models coming to the Google product line in the coming years, which will give the green light to other companies to push higher prices for software. We've already entered the age of monthly subscriptions, the amount of iOS apps using this system is growing at an unprecedented rate. Get ready! What do you say?
• jokoon 8y ago
  Gotta say Android is great, but the amount of bloat and Google apps you cannot uninstall is bad, especially for cheap phones.
• ulzeraj 8y ago
  So in practice what is the possibility this will not result in low quality and even more malicious default configurations? It’s not like hardware manufacturers are known to bundle all kinds of crap into their systems right?
• matz1 8y ago
  In comparison, anyone know how much total Microsoft have paid for its antitrust case so far ?
• Andrex 8y ago
  To play devil's advocate, Google's had these rules in place since Android released. It may be hard to visualize but Android started with 0% market share like everyone else. The tools Google used in Android's early days to rein in fragmentation (meaning what the EU is fining them for today) were effective but Google was still lambasted about not doing enough back then. The only thing that's changed from then to today is Android's market share. I'm not so sure taking away Google's ability to fight fragmentation is necessarily a good thing for consumers or developers. It'll certainly please OEMs and telcos, though.
• guelo 8y ago
  The fact that Google allows other OEMs to install their OS, as opposed to Apple which does not, is being used against them. If the lesson that Google learns is that it will kill it's OEM program then consumers will be worse off.
  • paglia_s 8y ago
    Why would Google have to allow OEMs to install their OS? They do not control the hardware, what google does is not allowing OEMs accessing it's services like Google Play unless it installs a lot of other apps like Gmail, Maps, Google search...
  • gowld 8y ago
    Not quite. The problem is that Google offered Android Open Source for free but then didn't allow its parrtners to use it freely. If they never open sourced Android they wouldn't have this problem.
    • guelo 8y ago
      So you're saying this is an attack on open source licenses that have conditions on them?
    • thejake0 8y ago
      Microsoft faced a very similar situation, but Windows was never open sourced.
• minusSeven 8y ago
  I like the amount of trouble EU takes just to protect consumers. This should actually be applauded. I don't think many countries do this outside Europe.
• kerng 8y ago
  Finally its official that Google does evil - good to see this even it came many years too late, same as it was with Microsoft and IE. But better late, then never. Now if only the US would do something similae.
• radium3d 8y ago
  I feel the EU needs to educate their government. Microsoft != Google when it comes to the Android OS. Google made Android free to make cheap devices possible for everyone to be able to afford a smartphone. They include their search engine as a way to fund all of their contribution to the development of Android. Manufacturers can pay to remove Google, it's still an option for them. How is this not a trustworthy business model?
  • Dylan16807 8y ago
    What do you mean by pay to remove Google?
    • radium3d 8y ago
      Actually maybe they don't have to pay, LineageOS comes to mind?
  • on_and_off 8y ago
    As a dev, I genuinely fear the day when Android devices ship without being approved by the CTS (compatibility test suite, devised by Google to ensure that compliant devices implement the APIs correctly). Fragmentation is 99% FUD right now. If everybody starts shipping huge forks of Android; with silently diverging APIs, it will be a nightmare. And that's just for devs. I guess my point is that I see why the EU reached this conclusion but I am unsure this will be a net benefit for devs and consumers.
    • Dylan16807 8y ago
      So keep the compatibility requirements and remove the anti-competitive requirements.
• wstrange 8y ago
  One wonders if the unintended consequence of this ruling is to further diminish competition in the smartphone space down to Apple and Google. Google is clearly getting in to the smartphone manufacturing business with Pixel phones and their acquihire of HTC engineers. Outside of HN, most consumers want the integrated experience offered by Apple and the default Google apps. You see this with Samsung - where consumers like the hardware but are not super keen on Samsung Apps. The easiest way to get that integrated experience is to buy an Apple or Google device.
• Kenji 8y ago
  Has anyone ever asked where the European Comission takes the rights from to do that? Nobody voted for these people. This body just came into existence and becomes more and more powerful without any one of us having a say in the matter.
• codedokode 8y ago
  I would like to add that there was a similar case in Russia where Yandex, a Russian company, accused Google that it made contracts with phone manufactures that banned them from preinstalling Google competitors' software. So the manufacturer had either to agree to those terms or was unable to get a license for Google Play Services and Google Play [1] [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/google-reaches-7-8-million-settlement-in-its-android-antitrust-case-in-russia/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/google-reaches-7-8-million...
• Kocrachon 8y ago
  This is a bit over my head. How does this apply to Google but not Apple? Don't they do the exact same thing? One of the arguments I saw was Google pushed its own market over others. But Apple makes it so you can't use any other market period. So I'm confused...
• DannyBee 8y ago
  The net outcome of this decision will be that nobody will create significant open platforms of this type anymore, because once you are successful you will no longer be able to have any control over the experience. Someone will always be able to find a market that you are hurting. If you actually read the decision that's essentially their underlying complaint. They dress it up in terms about search market blah blah blah, but in the end it's really about whether Google is allowed to control the experience of Android phones that want to use the Google apps and app store or not. Android being open at all was already a fight inside Google, this decision will essentially make it impossible for anybody win that fight in the future. I can't see why anyone would risk making an open platform again. Success only has downsides versus Apple's model. I expect the next major player here will either sell the operating system or sell the phones, and keep the other stuff closed
  • LolNoGenerics 8y ago
    So I can create an open platform and control how it is used? That doesn't make sense.
    • DannyBee 8y ago
      Err, no, they controlled only the people who chose to use their apps or play store. That's still open, you can do whatever you want, it's just if you want their stuff, you play by their rules.
      • LolNoGenerics 8y ago
        That has nothing to do with open software.
      • deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      • shanghaiaway 8y ago
        So it's not open.
• dep_b 8y ago
  Google should offer a kickback service. "Install our stuff on your phone and receive $50 back on your purchase!". Or just use Android without the preinstalled spyware _but_ with all of the API's that had been moved to Play Services.
• propman 8y ago
  So Microsoft is out of the phone business and basically the browser business. That’s the 3rd major phone OS. The rest are Chinese and there’s a huge cultural gap for them to become competitive in Europe. Google may have stifled OS competition, but that’s a lot more difficult market to crack than hardware competition for which google provided a huge opportunity for. It’s a lot easier making a phone that you know billions of users know the OS interface for. If I was Google, I’d use this as a perfect PR opportunity to switch gears and start charging $250 per phone for licensing Android and then offer $50 per phone to put all Google related apps on their for a net gain of $200 a phone plus their previous market share. Chrome, Google, Android are too deeply infiltrated to even effect a single percent of sales to a new OS competitor. Then slowly eat away at the competition by producing Pixel and related models which you can beat the competition for lower and mid phones by jacking up android licensing as you eat away at the market. End result, EU users pay hundreds of more per each phone and Hardware companies die off. Apple could also further jack up their phone prices.
• Buetol 8y ago
  Now Google is paying a Twitter ad campaign to save their reputation (under the hashtag #androidworks), they have no shame.
• anon12341234 8y ago
  The EU is beyond corrupt. The European commission under its current leadership hasn't issued a fine on this scale to a single European company, but has somehow managed to extract billions of dollars from Google, Apple, Facebook, and more. The US government needs to respond swiftly and decisively to show the EU this is unacceptable. Violence should not be off the table.
• hemantv 8y ago
  EU is so much better at antitrust regulations I just wish US was this forward thinking.
• cageface 8y ago
  I'm having a really hard time figuring out what happy ending the EU has in mind here. Google stops licensing Android to OEMs and doubles down on Pixel. It takes them years to catch up to Apple's marking and distribution head start, if they ever do. Samsung goes back to Tizen, which nobody wants, and sales plummet. All the other Android OEMs disappear. All we have left is Apple and the most expensive, proprietary and locked down platform in computing history. A single gatekeeper effectively controls the app space. Safari dictates what happens on the web. Who wins here except for the company that's already the richest in history? Or, more likely, the EU keeps going down this road and tech companies eventually start treating it like the backward nanny state it is and wall it off.
  • ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    This isn't a realistic scenario. If Google "stopped licensing Android", most OEMs would fork it at least initiating. Additionally, if Google were to move solely into the Pixel space, it would fail, overtaken by Samsung and other OEMs which know how to run a hardware business. Apple will continue to be a niche player because they like it that way, they aren't a threat and never have been. And without the big Android bully in the picture, it's likely new Linux-based OSes would find a place to flourish. Microsoft would probably reenter the mobile arena as well. You are forgetting there are dozens of manufacturers who all have large mobile phone businesses, and they aren't going to disappear because Google is forced to comply with the law. There is no scenario where Apple becomes a big scary monopoly that wins everything. That's what Google is, and that's why they're being fined.
    • cageface 8y ago
      Who is going to use Android with no app store and a bunch of crappy bundled apps? The answer is nobody. Look how far Amazon has been able to push that with all their engineering and marketing muscle. Apple is a niche player only because they clung to their margins like a bag of heroin and let cheap Android phones eat their lunch. If it weren't for Android they would have zero serious competition. I find myself in the very odd position today of having for the first time some sympathy with the Brexiters.
• bitmapbrother 8y ago
  I'm glad the EU has fined Google 5 billion. It's finally going to make them reassess their Android open source strategy and hopefully come to the inevitable conclusion that open sourcing Android was a mistake. Hopefully, they don't repeat this same mistake with Fuchsia. As for Google Mobile Services (GMS) - I believe the smart thing to do now would be to start charging OEM's, that sell phones in the EU, to license GMS at 5% of the cost of the device or $50 - whichever is lower. If OEM's don't want to use GMS they're free to ship their own services.
• iowahansen 8y ago
  My company ran into this time and again, trying to get our browser pre-installed by the manufacturer only to loose the deal last minute as Google would threaten to withhold device certification if there is a different browser pre-installed (beside Google Chrome). Google is a big bully and if you try to compete with them in an area they care about, they will use their market dominance to keep your product out. They have been deserving that fine for a long time.
• XparentX 8y ago
  Amen to this fine! Finally reality kicks in for Google. Late shall the sinners wake. I have been waiting and anticipating this in many years. It’s just the beginning. Facebooks will be next!
• cwills 8y ago
  Anyone know which Android based phone manufacturers or brands are based in the EU? Does the fine match their expected loses? What does the EU do with the money?