4 ms·

The other main difference it that the EU is punishing Google, while turning a blind eye to Microsoft's behavior. They were only fined for bundling IE and WMP wi

by swebs 8y ago

The other main difference it that the EU is punishing Google, while turning a blind eye to Microsoft's behavior. They were only fined for bundling IE and WMP with their OS. Locking customers out of competing operating systems is much more harmful in my opinion. The only EU mention of Windows bundling I can find is an Italian court ordering that customers should be able to get a refund for the Windows tax.

bunderbunder 8y ago
I'd say that, in this day and age, preventing vendors from using Android forks counts as a form of locking customers out of competing operating systems. Even more so now that Android forks represent the only serious alternative available to any phone manufacturer who isn't based in Cupertino. Also, two wrongs don't make a right. Microsoft getting off way too easy does not mean that Google should get off easy, too.
- swebs 8y ago
  I meant locking out competing OSs is worse than bundling a browser with your OS. Both companies deserve the fine.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- beerlord 8y ago
  Android already has a problem with fragmentation, which becomes a problem for customers when their phone becomes vulnerable due to a lack of security patches. There are lots of cheap Chinese Android phones simply filled with malware from the factory. If Google allowed phone makers to ship Android forks, this whole problem would become a lot worse. I think this Google policy is actually pro-consumer, and the EU is wrong on this point.
  - codedokode 8y ago
    Those Chinese phone manufacturers often use Google Services without a license. So what Google does doesn't change anything for them. Also, Google's agreements do not prevent vendors from installing malware as long it is not competing with Google apps.
    - __m 8y ago
      Which ones?
  - bad_user 8y ago
    You’re talking of the eternal tension between security and freedom. No, I don’t think that reducing choice and locking them in Google’s ecosystem is pro-consumer, even if done for the right reasons. Let’s remember that Android was welcomed by many of us as a free (as in freedom) alternative to iOS. If you want a locked-down, secure and polished OS, then Apple’s iOS is far better at this game. The only reason why Android is dominating the market right now is because it gave freedom to users and freedom to phone makers. And Google dialing that freedom down after becoming so popular is anti-competitive. It’s essentially a bait and switch, which is why I believe Google deserves that fine.
    - kajecounterhack 8y ago
      > It’s essentially a bait and switch, which is why I believe Google deserves that fine. Seems like you're projecting your own expectations onto what Google has really been selling all along. Google doesn't advertise Android as "free as in freedom." OEMs comply with their conditions. It's how it works.
      - bad_user 8y ago
        No, that was Android’s marketing from day 1 and as far as OEMs go, Google’s conditions have evolved, along with what they are shoving down on their users’ throats. And as far as “free as in freedom” goes, the US law agrees with me via “estoppel”.
sseveran 8y ago
The EU also required Microsoft to create the N editions, that came without the media player installed by default. I recall reading that very few copies were sold but I can't find a citation right now.
kerng 8y ago
They were also forced to offer choice with browsers, had a regression and paid a giant fine just a few years back. Besides the fine maybe Google should also be forcing existing installs to provide a choice?
wangyjx 8y ago
microsoft not forbids manufacturers to install OS other than windows, that's why you can buy computers with linux. There are always options, there is nothing to blame microsoft for this. If you don't want to buy Windows, you can choose a model without windows. If you cannot find a satisfied model without windows, go to blame your PC manufacturer
- RajuVarghese 8y ago
  Microsoft used to threaten PC manufacturers that bundled any other OS other than Windows or no OS at all. They claimed that not bundling an OS was the express purpose of installing a pirated copy of Windows.

by swebs 8y ago

bunderbunder 8y ago

I'd say that, in this day and age, preventing vendors from using Android forks counts as a form of locking customers out of competing operating systems. Even more so now that Android forks represent the only serious alternative available to any phone manufacturer who isn't based in Cupertino. Also, two wrongs don't make a right. Microsoft getting off way too easy does not mean that Google should get off easy, too.

swebs 8y ago
I meant locking out competing OSs is worse than bundling a browser with your OS. Both companies deserve the fine.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
beerlord 8y ago
Android already has a problem with fragmentation, which becomes a problem for customers when their phone becomes vulnerable due to a lack of security patches. There are lots of cheap Chinese Android phones simply filled with malware from the factory. If Google allowed phone makers to ship Android forks, this whole problem would become a lot worse. I think this Google policy is actually pro-consumer, and the EU is wrong on this point.
- codedokode 8y ago
  Those Chinese phone manufacturers often use Google Services without a license. So what Google does doesn't change anything for them. Also, Google's agreements do not prevent vendors from installing malware as long it is not competing with Google apps.
  - __m 8y ago
    Which ones?
- bad_user 8y ago
  You’re talking of the eternal tension between security and freedom. No, I don’t think that reducing choice and locking them in Google’s ecosystem is pro-consumer, even if done for the right reasons. Let’s remember that Android was welcomed by many of us as a free (as in freedom) alternative to iOS. If you want a locked-down, secure and polished OS, then Apple’s iOS is far better at this game. The only reason why Android is dominating the market right now is because it gave freedom to users and freedom to phone makers. And Google dialing that freedom down after becoming so popular is anti-competitive. It’s essentially a bait and switch, which is why I believe Google deserves that fine.
  - kajecounterhack 8y ago
    > It’s essentially a bait and switch, which is why I believe Google deserves that fine. Seems like you're projecting your own expectations onto what Google has really been selling all along. Google doesn't advertise Android as "free as in freedom." OEMs comply with their conditions. It's how it works.
    - bad_user 8y ago
      No, that was Android’s marketing from day 1 and as far as OEMs go, Google’s conditions have evolved, along with what they are shoving down on their users’ throats. And as far as “free as in freedom” goes, the US law agrees with me via “estoppel”.

sseveran 8y ago

The EU also required Microsoft to create the N editions, that came without the media player installed by default. I recall reading that very few copies were sold but I can't find a citation right now.

kerng 8y ago

They were also forced to offer choice with browsers, had a regression and paid a giant fine just a few years back. Besides the fine maybe Google should also be forcing existing installs to provide a choice?

wangyjx 8y ago

microsoft not forbids manufacturers to install OS other than windows, that's why you can buy computers with linux. There are always options, there is nothing to blame microsoft for this. If you don't want to buy Windows, you can choose a model without windows. If you cannot find a satisfied model without windows, go to blame your PC manufacturer

RajuVarghese 8y ago
Microsoft used to threaten PC manufacturers that bundled any other OS other than Windows or no OS at all. They claimed that not bundling an OS was the express purpose of installing a pirated copy of Windows.