7 ms·

Oh, Apple is a brutal dictatorship that doesn't share anything? That's fine. Oh, Google, you're willing to share almost everything with anyone for free, but y

Oh, Apple is a brutal dictatorship that doesn't share anything? That's fine. Oh, Google, you're willing to share almost everything with anyone for free, but you want to put terms on that? Hey, here's a giant fine. I just don't understand the logic of this at all.

Tepix 8y ago
It's mostly about having a 80% market share.
- acct1771 8y ago
  Fine them for the anticompetitive practices, then - not success...
  - zaarn 8y ago
    Fining anti-competitive practices only makes sense when it's successful. The EU laws around this are also worded as such. You can do anti-competitive behavior all you want if you're not a major player because you'll just be shooting yourself in the foot.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
mrweasel 8y ago
The logic is that you're not allowed to use your position in one marked to gain influence in another. Google knows that most manufacturer needs their devices to ship with the Play Store, because that's where the apps are and smartphone without apps are useless. But they use the Play Store as leverage, forcing manufactures to also ship Chrome, rather than Opera, Firefox or their own browser and that's the bit that is illegal. Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify, to force users to iTunes, and if they didn't then no iPhones on that carriers network. That being said I don't think Google is using the Play Store to force installations of Chrome or the Google search app, that's just weird. People would install Chrome anyway and they already dominate search, so why bother. I think the reason is technical, but the end result is still illegal.
- Xenos_Ender 8y ago
  Name an industry that doesn't use their position in one market to gain influence in another.
  - mrweasel 8y ago
    Most companies aren't in multiple different markets. Honestly your comment is pretty much kindergarten level argumentation, so I think that maybe you should just take your ball and go home. The question was regarding to the logic behind why Google is getting fined, while Apple is not, and I think I answered that question pretty well.
    - VikingCoder 8y ago
      > Most companies aren't in multiple different markets. If you sort public companies by Market Capitalization, how far down the list do you think you need to go, before you find a company that is only in one market?
  - MBCook 8y ago
    Nintendo
    - kevinh 8y ago
      Nintendo uses their games to push their game console.
- dlp211 8y ago
  This isnt true though. Samsung ships it's own apps as the defaults on it's devices as one example.
- neil_s 8y ago
  But Apple does pre-install iTunes/Apple Music, and make money when users use the default music app rather than downloading alternatives. You gotta pay for the OS somehow, but people aren't willing to pay for OSes. So instead, Apple makes money through the bundled hardware (to use iOS, you must buy an iPhone) and Google through the bundled software (if you want to use some Google apps like the Play Store, you must also use other Google apps like Chrome and Search).
princekolt 8y ago
> I just don't understand the logic of this at all. That doesn't mean it is wrong. =)
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  I'm asking for help understanding. And you know that. ಠ_ಠ
rmc 8y ago
The logic is that the terms (that google wanted) are unfair and bad for the free market.
contravariant 8y ago
Neither of those actions are illegal per se, but just because you it's not illegal to dictate terms doesn't mean you're allowed to choose any terms you want. The problem here is that Google allegedly dictated terms that gave them an unfair advantage in an unrelated market, breaching EU antitrust law. A stricter antitrust law might have prevented them from gaining such a dominant position in the first place, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here.
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  So to be clear, IF Google had manufactured all of the phones themselves, and had never open sourced Android, then they could have kept Chrome and Search on Android, and there would have been no problem, right? But because Google let other people manufacture Androids, and because Google open sourced Android, now it's a problem? The logic of this is just baffling to me.
  - contravariant 8y ago
    I'm not sure if that would bring them in the clear, Microsoft got fined for forcing Internet Explorer onto Windows users for instance.
    - redial 8y ago
      No, Microsoft was fined for forcing OEMs to install IE and not preinstall other browsers on PCs if they wanted Windows. It had nothing to do directly with end users.
  - pertymcpert 8y ago
    Google didn't write all of Android, there are GPL components. They didn't have the choice to keep it closed source, all of it anyway. And secondly, they're not being punished for having an open source operating system. They're being punished for forcing manufacturers to install their suite of software (simplified). It's not because they open sourced Android. I repeat, it's NOT BECAUSE THEY OPEN SOURCED ANDROID.
ionised 8y ago
You can make anyone sound like a paragon of virtue if you deliberately ignore the shitty things they do.

Tepix 8y ago

It's mostly about having a 80% market share.

acct1771 8y ago
Fine them for the anticompetitive practices, then - not success...
- zaarn 8y ago
  Fining anti-competitive practices only makes sense when it's successful. The EU laws around this are also worded as such. You can do anti-competitive behavior all you want if you're not a major player because you'll just be shooting yourself in the foot.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

mrweasel 8y ago

The logic is that you're not allowed to use your position in one marked to gain influence in another. Google knows that most manufacturer needs their devices to ship with the Play Store, because that's where the apps are and smartphone without apps are useless. But they use the Play Store as leverage, forcing manufactures to also ship Chrome, rather than Opera, Firefox or their own browser and that's the bit that is illegal. Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify, to force users to iTunes, and if they didn't then no iPhones on that carriers network. That being said I don't think Google is using the Play Store to force installations of Chrome or the Google search app, that's just weird. People would install Chrome anyway and they already dominate search, so why bother. I think the reason is technical, but the end result is still illegal.

Xenos_Ender 8y ago
Name an industry that doesn't use their position in one market to gain influence in another.
- mrweasel 8y ago
  Most companies aren't in multiple different markets. Honestly your comment is pretty much kindergarten level argumentation, so I think that maybe you should just take your ball and go home. The question was regarding to the logic behind why Google is getting fined, while Apple is not, and I think I answered that question pretty well.
  - VikingCoder 8y ago
    > Most companies aren't in multiple different markets. If you sort public companies by Market Capitalization, how far down the list do you think you need to go, before you find a company that is only in one market?
- MBCook 8y ago
  Nintendo
  - kevinh 8y ago
    Nintendo uses their games to push their game console.
dlp211 8y ago
This isnt true though. Samsung ships it's own apps as the defaults on it's devices as one example.
neil_s 8y ago
But Apple does pre-install iTunes/Apple Music, and make money when users use the default music app rather than downloading alternatives. You gotta pay for the OS somehow, but people aren't willing to pay for OSes. So instead, Apple makes money through the bundled hardware (to use iOS, you must buy an iPhone) and Google through the bundled software (if you want to use some Google apps like the Play Store, you must also use other Google apps like Chrome and Search).

princekolt 8y ago

> I just don't understand the logic of this at all. That doesn't mean it is wrong. =)

VikingCoder 8y ago
I'm asking for help understanding. And you know that. ಠ_ಠ

rmc 8y ago

The logic is that the terms (that google wanted) are unfair and bad for the free market.

contravariant 8y ago

Neither of those actions are illegal per se, but just because you it's not illegal to dictate terms doesn't mean you're allowed to choose any terms you want. The problem here is that Google allegedly dictated terms that gave them an unfair advantage in an unrelated market, breaching EU antitrust law. A stricter antitrust law might have prevented them from gaining such a dominant position in the first place, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here.

VikingCoder 8y ago
So to be clear, IF Google had manufactured all of the phones themselves, and had never open sourced Android, then they could have kept Chrome and Search on Android, and there would have been no problem, right? But because Google let other people manufacture Androids, and because Google open sourced Android, now it's a problem? The logic of this is just baffling to me.
- contravariant 8y ago
  I'm not sure if that would bring them in the clear, Microsoft got fined for forcing Internet Explorer onto Windows users for instance.
  - redial 8y ago
    No, Microsoft was fined for forcing OEMs to install IE and not preinstall other browsers on PCs if they wanted Windows. It had nothing to do directly with end users.
- pertymcpert 8y ago
  Google didn't write all of Android, there are GPL components. They didn't have the choice to keep it closed source, all of it anyway. And secondly, they're not being punished for having an open source operating system. They're being punished for forcing manufacturers to install their suite of software (simplified). It's not because they open sourced Android. I repeat, it's NOT BECAUSE THEY OPEN SOURCED ANDROID.

ionised 8y ago

You can make anyone sound like a paragon of virtue if you deliberately ignore the shitty things they do.