14 ms·

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

by 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 ?

by vivan 8y ago

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 ?