7 ms·
So let me get this.. Google allows 3rd parties to use their OS, allows 3rd party app stores, etc but gets a huge fine for bundling their own native app store.
by Urgo 8y ago
So let me get this..
Google allows 3rd parties to use their OS, allows 3rd party app stores, etc but gets a huge fine for bundling their own native app store.
Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to do anything and you need to use their app store but they're totally fine here.
Good job Europe.
- tzs 8y agoIt's hard to commit antitrust violations in your dealings with yourself. What would they accuse Apple of...using their dominance in iPhone operating systems to force themselves to include their own store? Google draws scrutiny from antitrust regulators in regard to phone software because Google is separate from the phone makers.
- islanderfun 8y agoThis is very interesting POV. Thinking out loud, if Micrsoft made their own PCs from the beginning and got as big as it did, would they have had the same problems? > phone software because Google is separate from the phone makers What if pixel phones become the only way to use Android? These are just semi-rhetorical (and unlikely scenarios) questions.
- dirkgently 8y ago> What would they accuse Apple of...using their dominance in iPhone operating systems to force themselves to include their own store? Yes, why not? Or that rule only applies to Google?
- tzs 8y agoThat "rule" doesn't apply to anyone. Google is not in trouble for making their own operating system and store and using them on their own phone. They are getting in trouble for the way they try to get other phones to include Google's store. With Apple the OS maker, the store maker, and the phone maker are all the same entity so it doesn't even make sense to say that the OS vendor is trying to force their store on the phone vendor. If Apple draws antitrust scrutiny, it will be for something different that what is drawing attention to Google, such as for not letting third party stores on their phone.
- TheBeardKing 8y agoSo if Google drops Android on its own phones for a new OS and discontinues Android development, will it be better off? It seems at this point sustaining Android for other manufacturers is just a headache for them.
- shinratdr 8y agoSorry, where does Apple have a majority marketshare in Europe?
- kiallmacinnes 8y agoProbably in Ireland. It seems to me that (aka: I have no data) the vast majority of Irish use an iPhone. The carriers have iPhones at roughly the same price as a half-decent Android phone, and those that can't afford to do that, get them second hand (usually older models..). I have an Android, and I know several techie friends with Androids, but "normal people" have iPhones. Really - It's almost a surprise to see someone with an Android here..
- mywacaday 8y agoIrish as well and have the opposite experience. Everyone from teenagers using cheap android phones up to to a lot of people i know using the latest Samsung. A lot of companies that would have previously used Blackberry but moved to to Iphones are now starting to move to android.
- berbec 8y agoIt seems like that here in New York too, but I believe it s because iPhones are the only instantly recognizable phone. If I look I can tell iPhone or other very easily.
- kiallmacinnes 8y agoMaybe, but I do recognize "not an iPhone" too - I'm a techie who loves his Android phone ;) As I said, I've no data.. I'd love to see some though!
- buboard 8y agohttps://deviceatlas.com/blog/5-facts-about-mobile-market-in-ireland https://deviceatlas.com/blog/5-facts-about-mobile-market-in-... That said the rest of Europe is definitely android
- kryptiskt 8y agoThe problem is Google forcing the phone makers to bundle Google apps that has nothing to do with Google Play to be able to ship Google Play. There is precedent here with Internet Explorer.
- bepotts 8y agoAnd regulation didn't topple internet explorer - the free market did. I don't understand why people keep trying to use the Internet Explorer precedent as an example of good antitrust maneuvers. It's literally the exact opposite.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoThis actually isn't true. The antitrust case is a big part of why Google (and hence, Chrome) exists today: Microsoft was scared that buying and killing Google, or blocking them from being set as the search engine on IE via the Google Toolbar would incite more penalties from the government. I would have to dig around for the source of the original story, but the suit is the only reason Google was able to topple Microsoft's dominance. The antitrust case gave Google and companies like it room to grow, and an antitrust case against Google may be the only thing can launch the next wave of innovation that surpasses it.
- merb 8y agonot really, when google started to really take off, internet explorer usage was declining already. nobody would've changed ie6 as their default browser because of the anti trust ruling. they changed because internet explorer was developed way slower than other competitors that slowly took over the market.
- Spivak 8y agoI think you're missing the big changes here: "But Google tied the use of its popular Play app store, where customers can download more than 1 million apps made by outside developers, to requirements that companies feature other services like Google’s search engine and web browser that drive advertising revenue." "Android phone makers wishing to distribute Google apps may now also build noncompatible, or forked, smartphones and tablets." You don't think there's any bad faith in Google saying, "if you want to use our app store, and for all practical purposes you have to use our app store, then you must include our apps for other services -- and by the way if you sell one phone with Gapps, all of your phones must have them too?"
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- beaner 8y agoAmazon did it with the Kindle Fire, so it isn't impossible. Google doesn't make money on the devices themselves. Being able to enforce rules like this is their motivation for developing Android in the first place.
- pkulak 8y agoAnd like 4 auto makers do it with their cars, and Lord knows how many TVs, toasters, and whatever else that's running Android these days.
- simion314 8y agoThe reason they started Android was because they did not want Apple to win all the market.
- em3rgent0rdr 8y ago> "they started Android" Android was created in October 2003 by Andy Rubin, before Google bought it in 2005 > "because they did not want Apple to win all the market" Actual purpose was: "The early intentions of the company were to develop an advanced operating system for digital cameras, and this was the basis of its pitch to investors in April 2004. The company then decided that the market for cameras was not large enough for its goals, and by five months later it had diverted its efforts and was pitching Android as a handset operating system that would rival Symbian and Microsoft Windows Mobile." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
- pjmlp 8y agoApple hatters need to learn the law before complaining. If Apple actually had any kind of comparable market share to Google over here, they would equally be fined.
- PSZD 8y agoActually, their overall market share wasn't particularly considered. They were fined for abusing their dominance in the market for app stores that are available on Android, and their dominance in the market for licensable smart mobile operating systems. Both of these categorically exclude Apple as competition.
- tomjen3 8y agoI wonder how much Apply bribed (sorry lobbied) for that to happen.
- AtlasLion 8y agoMaybe you should learn to spell haters first.
- buboard 8y agoI don't need to remind you the tax that Apple was demanded to pay.
- simion314 8y agoBut Google can put the hell they want on the Pixel and whatever phones they make, the issue is forcing others to bundle your apps.
- AtlasLion 8y agoStill better than not offering your OS to others.
- bepotts 8y agoIt's Google's operating system. Nobody would buy a Samsung, HTC, or Sony phone without Google's Research and Development. Smartphone manufacturers are in the smartphone business because of Google. If those manufacturers don't like Google's terms, they're free to go Microsoft's route and build their own OS. Nobody is forcing these companies to do anything.
- asr 8y agoI can make exactly the same point in reverse: "It's the manufacturer's phone. If Google doesn't want to offer its OS on terms that comply with EU competition law, it's free to go the Apple route and simply build all of its own phones. Nobody is forcing Google to do anything." Google and its smartphone partners are both in the business because of each other. If Google had kept Android closed and limited to its own phones, it would not have become the #1 mobile OS -- we'd be using Palm or Microsoft or Nokia or someone else's product.
- tomjen3 8y agoNot really sure how that works, given that Apple doesn't allow anybody to compete with them on their phone under any terms.
- cleansy 8y ago> [...] to maintain its dominance of the online search and advertising market. It's about the dominance in the search engine/advertising market in europe, not about "giving away apps for free". If Apple would have a similar dominant position, they would face the same problems.
- JustSomeNobody 8y agoThis is a whataboutism argument. Argue the merits of Google's case on what Google is actually doing (or not doing).
- sidlls 8y agoGoogle doesn't exist in a vacuum, and there's merit to discussing equal treatment under the law.
- JustSomeNobody 8y agoLeave Apple aside and talk about the cases that led to the law that Google is being held to, then.
- jjeaff 8y ago"Whataboutism" is a nice, albeit lazy, refrain in some discussions. But the EU uses common law. Common law is based on legal precedent, in other words, "whataboutism". However, I don't think that Apple has the market share in the EU to be compared to Google in this case.
- JustSomeNobody 8y agoThen you cannot use Apple here because there’s no precedent with them. Where are the cases that set precedent? I stand by my whataboutism callout.
- DenisM 8y agoEurope uses civil law, not common law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems
- umanwizard 8y ago> the EU uses common law As far as I know this is not true.
- mads_ravn 8y agoAndroid is considered a “monopoly” in Europe [1], hence they should adhere to other rules. So yes, good job Europe! [1] http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe