21 ms·

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=CE

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.

Wheaties466 8y ago
Thank you for breaking this down. I can already see headlines bashing the EU though.
endorphone 8y ago
How is that not clearly breaching d? They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android experience" (Google experience, whatever -- the thing that most consumers think of when they consider Android). They manifestly have a profound connection with each other. And let's be clear here lest there be any confusion -- zero customers want a vendor to do anything different, and the only reason some vendors wanted to is because they could double dip: Pitch the Android experience and get the market inroads, while getting some Bing or whatever payola to "force" that on a consumer. The same is true of the other claim- Then they said "You can't use Google Play if you try to help develop any android forks." Google's argument, whether honest or not, is that if you need a consistent representation of the Android experience that you're selling to consumers. If the GS8 has the full Android experience, but then the GS8P has the Android Fun Store and Bing Search, this can seriously dilute the market opinion of Android and cause consumer confusion. This is absolutely not at all clear cut. It is incredibly nuanced. And if we just go around clubbing everything coarsely, why does my BMW have a BMW entertainment system? Why couldn't I choose Alpine at the dealer? An entertainment system is not an engine, right? I don't want to go down the road of absurd analogies, but if you're seriously presenting the notion that this is clear cut, you are not really thinking about it much. As an aside, Google has had the same policies regard their suite of apps since day 1 of Android. Since the very beginning. When iOS absolutely dwarfed it. When Blackberry reigned supreme. When I was hefting around my sad little HTC Dream and listening to the John Gruber's tell us how doomed it was.
- typon 8y ago
  Are there car dealers trying to offer a la carte car + entertainment system packages but are being shut down by BMW?
  - endorphone 8y ago
    Of course there aren't because BMW absolutely squashed the possibility of that at the outset. But Google, apparently, deserves a $5B fine because they made a mistake of powering AOSP phones, the Amazon products, countless variations in China, set top boxes, etc. It is incredible seeing Google being seriously attacked on here for have an open source path as well. I feel like this is some sort of alternative universe.
    - typon 8y ago
      If Google had gone the open source route out of the goodness of their hearts, you'd have an argument. Google went the open source route to bootstrap on top of a well known operating system (Linux), as well as to accelerate adoption and catch up to Apple as fast as they could. Then once they got market dominance, they abused their position to stifle competition.
      - dlp211 8y ago
        There is nothing that you said that requires Android to be open source.
        typon 8y ago
        I think Android's popularity and extremely quick adoption owes itself to the fact that it's open source.
        scarface74 8y ago
        It owes to being free not open source. OEMs really only had three choices. Create their own OS (horrible choice), use Windows Mobile or use Android. The deciding factor was free. Phone manufacturers no more cared about open source than Windows anufacturers.

Wheaties466 8y ago

Thank you for breaking this down. I can already see headlines bashing the EU though.

endorphone 8y ago

How is that not clearly breaching d? They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android experience" (Google experience, whatever -- the thing that most consumers think of when they consider Android). They manifestly have a profound connection with each other. And let's be clear here lest there be any confusion -- zero customers want a vendor to do anything different, and the only reason some vendors wanted to is because they could double dip: Pitch the Android experience and get the market inroads, while getting some Bing or whatever payola to "force" that on a consumer. The same is true of the other claim- Then they said "You can't use Google Play if you try to help develop any android forks." Google's argument, whether honest or not, is that if you need a consistent representation of the Android experience that you're selling to consumers. If the GS8 has the full Android experience, but then the GS8P has the Android Fun Store and Bing Search, this can seriously dilute the market opinion of Android and cause consumer confusion. This is absolutely not at all clear cut. It is incredibly nuanced. And if we just go around clubbing everything coarsely, why does my BMW have a BMW entertainment system? Why couldn't I choose Alpine at the dealer? An entertainment system is not an engine, right? I don't want to go down the road of absurd analogies, but if you're seriously presenting the notion that this is clear cut, you are not really thinking about it much. As an aside, Google has had the same policies regard their suite of apps since day 1 of Android. Since the very beginning. When iOS absolutely dwarfed it. When Blackberry reigned supreme. When I was hefting around my sad little HTC Dream and listening to the John Gruber's tell us how doomed it was.

typon 8y ago
Are there car dealers trying to offer a la carte car + entertainment system packages but are being shut down by BMW?
- endorphone 8y ago
  Of course there aren't because BMW absolutely squashed the possibility of that at the outset. But Google, apparently, deserves a $5B fine because they made a mistake of powering AOSP phones, the Amazon products, countless variations in China, set top boxes, etc. It is incredible seeing Google being seriously attacked on here for have an open source path as well. I feel like this is some sort of alternative universe.
  - typon 8y ago
    If Google had gone the open source route out of the goodness of their hearts, you'd have an argument. Google went the open source route to bootstrap on top of a well known operating system (Linux), as well as to accelerate adoption and catch up to Apple as fast as they could. Then once they got market dominance, they abused their position to stifle competition.
    - dlp211 8y ago
      There is nothing that you said that requires Android to be open source.
      - typon 8y ago
        I think Android's popularity and extremely quick adoption owes itself to the fact that it's open source.
        scarface74 8y ago
        It owes to being free not open source. OEMs really only had three choices. Create their own OS (horrible choice), use Windows Mobile or use Android. The deciding factor was free. Phone manufacturers no more cared about open source than Windows anufacturers.