6 ms·

> we’ve always agreed on one thing一that healthy, thriving markets are in everyone’s interest. We're so much in agreement that we're only going to trial that he

by mythz 8y ago

> we’ve always agreed on one thing一that healthy, thriving markets are in everyone’s interest. We're so much in agreement that we're only going to trial that healthy, thriving market in the EU - where we're legally obligated to.

freedomben 8y ago
Haha agreed. I'm generally not in favor of regulation, but sadly this does seem to show that it can be effective. Google could have done this before but chose not to. Clearly they don't really believe their own PR, or else they'd institute it worldwide.
- mancerayder 8y ago
  I believe they call it, as for forgiveness rather than ask for permission. It's funny how fines can sometimes act on that philosophy in ethical ways.
quest88 8y ago
Maybe to legally force Apple into a similar pattern? I don't know the details of the law.
- angott 8y ago
  Apple is not affected by most of these rulings as they only apply to firms that control the majority of a given market (the goal of these laws is to impact potential monopolists, not smaller actors). Apple is not considered to have majority market share in smartphones because iOS represents only 20% of the market, as opposed to Android which is ubiquitous.
  - hesarenu 8y ago
    That would still be millions of users who don't have a choice.
    - jdietrich 8y ago
      Apple don't stand to profit from making Safari the default/only browser on iOS. Google have a significant financial interest in directing Android users towards Google search. The relevant law is Article 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU, which prohibits an abuse of a dominant position within the common market. Apple don't have a dominant position in the smartphone market, with a share of around 28%; it's not clear that Safari is in any way abusive, rather than simply a legitimate technical decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law#Abuse_of_dominance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law...
      - ucaetano 8y ago
        > Apple don't stand to profit from making Safari the default/only browser on iOS. Yes, it does: it sells placement on that browser, since it is the default browser. And that's billions of dollars per year. > Apple don't have a dominant position in the smartphone market Apple has 100% market share in the "proprietary mobile operating system", just as Android has 100% market share on the "licensable mobile operating system". Those are the market definitions the EC used to assess the case, not "the whole mobile operating system market". Get you facts minimally straight :)
        strictnein 8y ago
        Please link one place that has the EC mentioning "proprietary mobile operating system".
        ucaetano 8y ago
        It didn't, because it only addressed Android so far: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm "At this stage, the Commission considers 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." Not only the EC used "licensable smart mobile operating systems" but it also used "app stores for the Android mobile operating system". It assumed that Android does not compete with iOS and that the Play store does not compete with the App store. So, if Android doesn't compete with iOS, then Apple has a monopoly in it's market: proprietary non-lincesable mobile operating systems.
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    Why does it only apply to web browsers?
    - illvm 8y ago
      It doesn't. It's also been applied to media players, for example.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    No, you're wrong. They are evaluating Android within the context of "licensable mobile operating systems", within which Android has 100% market share. Similarly, iOS has 100% market share in the "proprietary mobile operating system" market, and would therefore be subject to the same implications as Google & Android. The reason why the EC decided to go after Android but not iOS I'll leave for the reader to inquire.
    - s3r3nity 8y ago
      That's a very specious argument: you make the mobile OS market so specific such that both Android and iOS have separate monopolies for very different reasons. In reality, antitrust law market definition would more likely resort to looking at a customer choice model: as a consumer, I purchase a phone, which can have a given operating system. My choices are between iOS / Android / other. It's that simple. The "licensable" vs. "proprietary" distinction are distribution models that, from a consumer choice perspective, is irrelevant.
      - ucaetano 8y ago
        > That's a very specious argument That isn't an argument, that is literally the market definition used by the EC. > The "licensable" vs. "proprietary" distinction are distribution models that, from a consumer choice perspective, is irrelevant. You are literally wrong, and clearly didn't do you homework: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm "At this stage, the Commission considers 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." Not only the EC used "licensable smart mobile operating systems" but it also used "app stores for the Android mobile operating system". It assumed that Android does not compete with iOS and that the Play store does not compete with the App store.
        strictnein 8y ago
        Just because they mention "licensable" doesn't imply some other category of concern that would involve "proprietary". You seem very sure of a position that nothing you've linked has highlighted in the slightest. They are concerned because the dominant licensable OS requires proprietary software and services, which is what the document you linked makes very clear.
justcodebruh 8y ago
+15 internet points for seeing through the nonsense pr
Mirioron 8y ago
That's because it's going to cause frustration in users. I guarantee it.
- kerng 8y ago
  Customers in Europe are used to these choices, it was the same with Microsoft and Windows and their browser.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    No, I'm not. Neither are my parents. They get particularly frustrated over it.
    - sametmax 8y ago
      "particularly frustrated" over a one time question once every 3 years ? I'm sensing BS here.
      - Mirioron 8y ago
        Yes, frustration over a question, because they don't understand why they need to do this complicated stuff "just to access the internet".
- flukus 8y ago
  If they're worried about users being confused then they can automatically install a random browser and save users the imposition of selecting one. I think the EU would be cool with that.
- slim 8y ago
  Operating an Android phone for the first time involves going through a wizard for setting up things like language, timezones, wifi, etc.. one more screen in that wizard does not add any frustration
  - 8y ago
mtgx 8y ago
We also agree so much with a healthy and competitive market that we're still going to appeal all of EC's anti-trust rulings against us.

by mythz 8y ago

freedomben 8y ago

Haha agreed. I'm generally not in favor of regulation, but sadly this does seem to show that it can be effective. Google could have done this before but chose not to. Clearly they don't really believe their own PR, or else they'd institute it worldwide.

mancerayder 8y ago
I believe they call it, as for forgiveness rather than ask for permission. It's funny how fines can sometimes act on that philosophy in ethical ways.

quest88 8y ago

Maybe to legally force Apple into a similar pattern? I don't know the details of the law.

angott 8y ago
Apple is not affected by most of these rulings as they only apply to firms that control the majority of a given market (the goal of these laws is to impact potential monopolists, not smaller actors). Apple is not considered to have majority market share in smartphones because iOS represents only 20% of the market, as opposed to Android which is ubiquitous.
- hesarenu 8y ago
  That would still be millions of users who don't have a choice.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    Apple don't stand to profit from making Safari the default/only browser on iOS. Google have a significant financial interest in directing Android users towards Google search. The relevant law is Article 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU, which prohibits an abuse of a dominant position within the common market. Apple don't have a dominant position in the smartphone market, with a share of around 28%; it's not clear that Safari is in any way abusive, rather than simply a legitimate technical decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law#Abuse_of_dominance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law...
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      > Apple don't stand to profit from making Safari the default/only browser on iOS. Yes, it does: it sells placement on that browser, since it is the default browser. And that's billions of dollars per year. > Apple don't have a dominant position in the smartphone market Apple has 100% market share in the "proprietary mobile operating system", just as Android has 100% market share on the "licensable mobile operating system". Those are the market definitions the EC used to assess the case, not "the whole mobile operating system market". Get you facts minimally straight :)
      - strictnein 8y ago
        Please link one place that has the EC mentioning "proprietary mobile operating system".
        ucaetano 8y ago
        It didn't, because it only addressed Android so far: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm "At this stage, the Commission considers 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." Not only the EC used "licensable smart mobile operating systems" but it also used "app stores for the Android mobile operating system". It assumed that Android does not compete with iOS and that the Play store does not compete with the App store. So, if Android doesn't compete with iOS, then Apple has a monopoly in it's market: proprietary non-lincesable mobile operating systems.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  Why does it only apply to web browsers?
  - illvm 8y ago
    It doesn't. It's also been applied to media players, for example.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  No, you're wrong. They are evaluating Android within the context of "licensable mobile operating systems", within which Android has 100% market share. Similarly, iOS has 100% market share in the "proprietary mobile operating system" market, and would therefore be subject to the same implications as Google & Android. The reason why the EC decided to go after Android but not iOS I'll leave for the reader to inquire.
  - s3r3nity 8y ago
    That's a very specious argument: you make the mobile OS market so specific such that both Android and iOS have separate monopolies for very different reasons. In reality, antitrust law market definition would more likely resort to looking at a customer choice model: as a consumer, I purchase a phone, which can have a given operating system. My choices are between iOS / Android / other. It's that simple. The "licensable" vs. "proprietary" distinction are distribution models that, from a consumer choice perspective, is irrelevant.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      > That's a very specious argument That isn't an argument, that is literally the market definition used by the EC. > The "licensable" vs. "proprietary" distinction are distribution models that, from a consumer choice perspective, is irrelevant. You are literally wrong, and clearly didn't do you homework: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm "At this stage, the Commission considers 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." Not only the EC used "licensable smart mobile operating systems" but it also used "app stores for the Android mobile operating system". It assumed that Android does not compete with iOS and that the Play store does not compete with the App store.
      - strictnein 8y ago
        Just because they mention "licensable" doesn't imply some other category of concern that would involve "proprietary". You seem very sure of a position that nothing you've linked has highlighted in the slightest. They are concerned because the dominant licensable OS requires proprietary software and services, which is what the document you linked makes very clear.

justcodebruh 8y ago

+15 internet points for seeing through the nonsense pr

Mirioron 8y ago

That's because it's going to cause frustration in users. I guarantee it.

kerng 8y ago
Customers in Europe are used to these choices, it was the same with Microsoft and Windows and their browser.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  No, I'm not. Neither are my parents. They get particularly frustrated over it.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    "particularly frustrated" over a one time question once every 3 years ? I'm sensing BS here.
    - Mirioron 8y ago
      Yes, frustration over a question, because they don't understand why they need to do this complicated stuff "just to access the internet".
flukus 8y ago
If they're worried about users being confused then they can automatically install a random browser and save users the imposition of selecting one. I think the EU would be cool with that.
slim 8y ago
Operating an Android phone for the first time involves going through a wizard for setting up things like language, timezones, wifi, etc.. one more screen in that wizard does not add any frustration
- 8y ago

mtgx 8y ago

We also agree so much with a healthy and competitive market that we're still going to appeal all of EC's anti-trust rulings against us.