4 ms·

Between this and their main rival reaching a trillion dollar valuation would someone explain to me what the EU fine was for?

thrill 8y ago
Not buttering the right toast.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Anticompetitive behavior in forcing OEMs to bundle other Google Apps if they wanted access to the Play Store and Play Services, which has nothing to do with the other two things you mentioned.
- econ4all 8y ago
  They weren't forcing anyone to sign the contracts, see Fire devices and the Chinese mobile market for google free Android examples. Also you're making sound like they were "bundling" trash, the apps are useful and of higher quality than most apps on the platform, not mention that they make Android phones comparable to iPhones.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "They weren't forcing anyone to sign the contracts" This is very, very disingenuous. If the only way to have a successful product in the American and European markets is to have the Play Store, then yes, there is some level of force there. "see Fire devices and the Chinese mobile market for google free Android examples." Google wasn't allowed in China to begin with, so that's a very poor comparison. And the Fire Android devices flopped pretty badly. "Also you're making sound like they were "bundling" trash, the apps are useful and of higher quality than most apps on the platform" Completely irrelevant; they're still forcing the bundling.
superfrank 8y ago
I am not a lawyer, but I believe anti-trust lawsuits often revolve around what the average consumer can do/is aware of. In Europe, Android dominates the smartphone OS market with ~75% market share and most come pre-bundled with Google software. With names like "messages", "photos", or "calendar" it's not really clear that these are Google products or that they can be changed. You basically end up with most of that market share using Google software without even understanding that they have a choice. I believe the logic behind the fine was very similar to the USA vs Microsoft anti trust suit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...). To put it in perspective though, the fine Google received was less than 2 weeks worth of revenue and will probably be lowered if they appeal. It's not really as big a deal as the media made it out to be. I'm not saying I agree with the fine, but I do understand how, in a certain light, the EU see Google's practice as a bit monopolistic.
- econ4all 8y ago
  It's closer to a 50/50 split than you make it sound, and the difference between this the microsoft case is that Windows had >95% of the market and not to mention that OEMs don't need google's permission to roll out their own OS (see the Chinese mobile market) also consumers would need those fundamental apps to make the phone usable similar to the apps that come with iOS which contrary to Android's are the defaults forever and can't be replaced.
  - superfrank 8y ago
    > It's closer to a 50/50 split than you make it sound No, Android OS is at 74.2% of the EU market. It's closer to 50/50 in the US, but in the EU and worldwide Android dominates the market and will probably continue to rise as Huawei continues to expand. Multiple sources for the 74.2% number: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe https://www.mobileeurope.co.uk/press-wire/ios-and-android-gain-smartphone-market-share-in-europe-as-windows-enters-tailspin https://www.mobileeurope.co.uk/press-wire/ios-and-android-ga...
  - stefan_ 8y ago
    There seems to be a myth going around on HN that having a dominating market position is some sort of necessary and sufficient condition to an anti-trust violation. That is not the case.
  - genericid 8y ago
    The EU generally considers 40% a dominant market share so even if there were a 50/50 split, it wouldn't matter.

thrill 8y ago

Not buttering the right toast.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

Anticompetitive behavior in forcing OEMs to bundle other Google Apps if they wanted access to the Play Store and Play Services, which has nothing to do with the other two things you mentioned.

econ4all 8y ago
They weren't forcing anyone to sign the contracts, see Fire devices and the Chinese mobile market for google free Android examples. Also you're making sound like they were "bundling" trash, the apps are useful and of higher quality than most apps on the platform, not mention that they make Android phones comparable to iPhones.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "They weren't forcing anyone to sign the contracts" This is very, very disingenuous. If the only way to have a successful product in the American and European markets is to have the Play Store, then yes, there is some level of force there. "see Fire devices and the Chinese mobile market for google free Android examples." Google wasn't allowed in China to begin with, so that's a very poor comparison. And the Fire Android devices flopped pretty badly. "Also you're making sound like they were "bundling" trash, the apps are useful and of higher quality than most apps on the platform" Completely irrelevant; they're still forcing the bundling.

superfrank 8y ago

I am not a lawyer, but I believe anti-trust lawsuits often revolve around what the average consumer can do/is aware of. In Europe, Android dominates the smartphone OS market with ~75% market share and most come pre-bundled with Google software. With names like "messages", "photos", or "calendar" it's not really clear that these are Google products or that they can be changed. You basically end up with most of that market share using Google software without even understanding that they have a choice. I believe the logic behind the fine was very similar to the USA vs Microsoft anti trust suit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...). To put it in perspective though, the fine Google received was less than 2 weeks worth of revenue and will probably be lowered if they appeal. It's not really as big a deal as the media made it out to be. I'm not saying I agree with the fine, but I do understand how, in a certain light, the EU see Google's practice as a bit monopolistic.

econ4all 8y ago
It's closer to a 50/50 split than you make it sound, and the difference between this the microsoft case is that Windows had >95% of the market and not to mention that OEMs don't need google's permission to roll out their own OS (see the Chinese mobile market) also consumers would need those fundamental apps to make the phone usable similar to the apps that come with iOS which contrary to Android's are the defaults forever and can't be replaced.
- superfrank 8y ago
  > It's closer to a 50/50 split than you make it sound No, Android OS is at 74.2% of the EU market. It's closer to 50/50 in the US, but in the EU and worldwide Android dominates the market and will probably continue to rise as Huawei continues to expand. Multiple sources for the 74.2% number: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe https://www.mobileeurope.co.uk/press-wire/ios-and-android-gain-smartphone-market-share-in-europe-as-windows-enters-tailspin https://www.mobileeurope.co.uk/press-wire/ios-and-android-ga...
- stefan_ 8y ago
  There seems to be a myth going around on HN that having a dominating market position is some sort of necessary and sufficient condition to an anti-trust violation. That is not the case.
- genericid 8y ago
  The EU generally considers 40% a dominant market share so even if there were a 50/50 split, it wouldn't matter.