4 ms·

I hadn't really been following this previously, but I did glance at the official EC press release just now (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.h

by Reelin 8y ago

I hadn't really been following this previously, but I did glance at the official EC press release just now (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm). From that document: * has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store); * made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and * has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks"). That last one in particular sounds quite abusive to me, given that I'm a fan of FOSS. > it certainly sounds like Google will be levying "EC stupidity tax" for all EEA devices Is it really stupidity to attempt to prevent a large international corporation from abusing its market dominance? Or are you perhaps suggesting that the EC should have backed down in order to avoid being bullied by Google?

zokier 8y ago
> Is it really stupidity to attempt to prevent a large international corporation from abusing its market dominance It is stupidity to attempt and fail so spectacularly
- mtgx 8y ago
  Are you suggesting the EC should have been much more aggressive in their ruling then? Because then I would have to agree.
- Reelin 8y ago
  So what are they supposed to do then? Just pretend nothing is wrong?! This may raise prices somewhat in the short term, but hopefully it will curb this kind of behavior in the long term.
  - zdragnar 8y ago
    I'm not following your logic. How will fatter margins for Google lead to less of this behavior?
    - Reelin 8y ago
      > How will fatter margins for Google lead to less of this behavior? I never claimed that Google would have larger margins, nor do I agree with that assumption. First, the behavior in question. They abused their market dominance to force other companies to do things which were advantageous for them. They have been fined for it, have officially announced that they will no longer be doing it, and if they were ever to resume would presumably face further very steep fines. Moreover, this turn of events will hopefully give pause to anyone thinking to emulate their strategy in the future. Regardless of what happens to their margins going forward, there will almost certainly be less of this behavior. More than that though, your assumption that their margins will increase doesn't make very much sense. If that were the case, why didn't they pursue this sort of licensing scheme previously? The obvious answer is that in their best estimate the new way of doing things will actually hurt their margins. Presumably driving users to their services was worth more than charging a licensing fee to offset the cost of developing GApps, as they make money off of user data. It also had the bonus of preventing any meaningful competition from developing - their search engine was installed by default (minimizes competition), their software was installed by default (minimizes competition), and you couldn't charge a licensing fee for a competing suite of software because their price (free) would always substantially undercut yours. Even if you did somehow find a way to compete on the software front, you couldn't do business with any of the major manufactures. If they went with your software instead of Google's on any of their devices they could no longer license GApps at all. Ending their abusive licensing practices opens the door to companies offering devices with an Android fork if that makes sense for them. Importantly, it means that a top tier manufacture can now continue to offer official Android devices with GApps while also trying out a competing (unofficial) design. So yes, prices may go up in the short or even long term, but nonetheless Google's margins will likely be damaged.
- jarfil 8y ago
  Where's the fail? Android devices with the licensed software will be slightly more expensive, so competitors will have a chance to offer cheaper alternatives. Sounds like working as intended to me.
Nomentatus 8y ago
From that EU URL (thanks): "The Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system." Then the rest of the document disappoints me, bitterly, for this reason: If I want to sell devices that host Android under Linux (or just offer both) can I do that? No. Not even under Google's new rules so far as I can tell.

by Reelin 8y ago

zokier 8y ago

> Is it really stupidity to attempt to prevent a large international corporation from abusing its market dominance It is stupidity to attempt and fail so spectacularly

mtgx 8y ago
Are you suggesting the EC should have been much more aggressive in their ruling then? Because then I would have to agree.
Reelin 8y ago
So what are they supposed to do then? Just pretend nothing is wrong?! This may raise prices somewhat in the short term, but hopefully it will curb this kind of behavior in the long term.
- zdragnar 8y ago
  I'm not following your logic. How will fatter margins for Google lead to less of this behavior?
  - Reelin 8y ago
    > How will fatter margins for Google lead to less of this behavior? I never claimed that Google would have larger margins, nor do I agree with that assumption. First, the behavior in question. They abused their market dominance to force other companies to do things which were advantageous for them. They have been fined for it, have officially announced that they will no longer be doing it, and if they were ever to resume would presumably face further very steep fines. Moreover, this turn of events will hopefully give pause to anyone thinking to emulate their strategy in the future. Regardless of what happens to their margins going forward, there will almost certainly be less of this behavior. More than that though, your assumption that their margins will increase doesn't make very much sense. If that were the case, why didn't they pursue this sort of licensing scheme previously? The obvious answer is that in their best estimate the new way of doing things will actually hurt their margins. Presumably driving users to their services was worth more than charging a licensing fee to offset the cost of developing GApps, as they make money off of user data. It also had the bonus of preventing any meaningful competition from developing - their search engine was installed by default (minimizes competition), their software was installed by default (minimizes competition), and you couldn't charge a licensing fee for a competing suite of software because their price (free) would always substantially undercut yours. Even if you did somehow find a way to compete on the software front, you couldn't do business with any of the major manufactures. If they went with your software instead of Google's on any of their devices they could no longer license GApps at all. Ending their abusive licensing practices opens the door to companies offering devices with an Android fork if that makes sense for them. Importantly, it means that a top tier manufacture can now continue to offer official Android devices with GApps while also trying out a competing (unofficial) design. So yes, prices may go up in the short or even long term, but nonetheless Google's margins will likely be damaged.
jarfil 8y ago
Where's the fail? Android devices with the licensed software will be slightly more expensive, so competitors will have a chance to offer cheaper alternatives. Sounds like working as intended to me.

Nomentatus 8y ago

From that EU URL (thanks): "The Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system." Then the rest of the document disappoints me, bitterly, for this reason: If I want to sell devices that host Android under Linux (or just offer both) can I do that? No. Not even under Google's new rules so far as I can tell.