3 ms·

"The Court agreed with the Commission's assessment that iPhone maker Apple (AAPL.O) was not in the same market and therefore could not be a competitive constrai

by izacus 4y ago

"The Court agreed with the Commission's assessment that iPhone maker Apple (AAPL.O) was not in the same market and therefore could not be a competitive constraint against Android." This tells a lot about how much our EU lawmakers understand modern technology. While there's nothing wrong with this fine, claiming that Apple isn't in the same market as Android is utter ridiculousness.

IanCal 4y ago
Apple isn't in the same market. It helps to look at the actual overview because it explains what they mean by markets and why apple isn't in the same market: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2022-09/cp220147en.pdf https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202... What's key in this is that it's about google taking their dominant position in one market and using it to exert undue influence in another market.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  > In the present case, the General Court notes at the outset that the Commission identified, first of all, four types of relevant market: (i) the worldwide market (excluding China) for the licensing of smart mobile device operating systems; (ii) the worldwide market (excluding China) for Android app stores; (iii) the various national markets, within the EEA, for the provision of general search services; and (iv) the worldwide market for non OS-specific mobile web browsers. The Commission went on to find that Google held a dominant position on the first three of those markets.
  - IanCal 4y ago
    Yes, if my wording of "one market" is confusing hopefully this makes it clear: You don't really get in trouble for just growing your business within a market. You get in trouble for abusing your dominant position in one market to influence another. You can see this in the restrictions identified > those contained in ‘distribution agreements’, requiring manufacturers of mobile devices to pre-install the general search (Google Search) and (Chrome) browser apps in order to be able to obtain a licence from Google to use its app store (Play Store); They used their position of having a huge influence with Play Store to force manufacturers to include google search and chrome, which are unrelated. > those contained in ‘anti-fragmentation agreements’, under which the operating licences necessary for the pre-installation of the Google Search and Play Store apps could be obtained by mobile device manufacturers only if they undertook not to sell devices running versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google; They used their position with Android to force manufacturers to push google search and the play store by not letting them even build other devices without approval. > those contained in ‘revenue share agreements’, under which the grant of a share of Google’s advertising revenue to the manufacturers of mobile devices and the mobile network operators concerned was subject to their undertaking not to pre-install a competing general search service on a predefined portfolio of devices. They used their advertising business to force out competitors in search. You can argue this is one market if you want but it's clear this isn't competing on the merits of google search.
AnssiH 4y ago
The market in question is licensable smartphone operating systems, which is not a market Apple operates in (edit: well, other markets are involved too, see sibling thread). They (Commission and Court) never claimed that there aren't any markets they both operate in (which there obviously are). See the decision for more details, AFAICS it talks about Google's claim that Apple provides enough competitive constraint starting from section 145: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=265421&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4079 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...
- izacus 4y ago
  And I continue to claim that looking at market this myopically doesn't actually represent the full harm and prevents the courts from making better decisions across the board. Just because Apple doesn't allow people to pay them money to deploy iOS it doesn't mean it has no effect on us consumers across the EU. With this kind of thinking they'll just send a signal that building Apple-style locked DRM platforms is the only way to succeed - instead of building platforms that can be reused across manufacturers and can provide diversity in the market. I really don't want to see another reenactment of Symbian with it's self-destroying fragmentation against Apple.
- bluGill 4y ago
  If you define your market narrowly enough you can make everyone a monopoly. Sometimes what is needed is to step back and say the definition is too narrow.
  - pyrale 4y ago
    The issue isn't about being a monopoly, it's about using a dominant position to force the other party to use other products. As soon as you successfully pressure someone into that kind of deal, it is pretty obvious that the product you use as leverage is dominant in some way.
lucozade 4y ago
The market they were considering was for OSs that were licensed to hardware manufacturers. And they did that because the abuse they were investigating was in those license agreements. They specifically excluded Apple (and Blackberry) as competitors in that market because they don't license to external hardware manufacturers. Google didn't contest that definition.
- izacus 4y ago
  Yes, and that's a myopic exclusion that ignores the fact that we want more manufacturers to license their OS, not less.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - junofan 4y ago
    The government is not a great tool for getting what you want.
    - Iolaum 4y ago
      While I agree with that, I would welcome a recommendation for a better tool.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lucozade 4y ago
    Not sure that makes any sense in the context of this investigation. The only possible difference including Apple would have made is in concluding that Google isn't dominant and thus restricting browsers and search within the license had much less material impact. In other words, it would either have no effect or have the effect of letting Google off for its restrictive practices. And investigating Apple for its licensing agreements with its hardware supplier probably would be a bit pointless. Now, should the EU be investigating the lack of hardware freedom in some ecosystems including Apple's? Sure, sounds eminently sensible. But that's completely different to what the EU was investigating here.
unity1001 4y ago
Civil law doesn't work like that. Its precise. You cant just 'interpret' things to widen or shrink the scope. You can't include things that are not directly specified in the law or in the lawsuit. If the lawsuit is about software licensed to hardware manufacturers, the lawsuit is about it. Another lawsuit will need to be opened to deal with software licensed to end users. Its somewhat like iterative software development. The scope is kept as precise as possible.

by izacus 4y ago

IanCal 4y ago

Apple isn't in the same market. It helps to look at the actual overview because it explains what they mean by markets and why apple isn't in the same market: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2022-09/cp220147en.pdf https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202... What's key in this is that it's about google taking their dominant position in one market and using it to exert undue influence in another market.

ethbr0 4y ago
> In the present case, the General Court notes at the outset that the Commission identified, first of all, four types of relevant market: (i) the worldwide market (excluding China) for the licensing of smart mobile device operating systems; (ii) the worldwide market (excluding China) for Android app stores; (iii) the various national markets, within the EEA, for the provision of general search services; and (iv) the worldwide market for non OS-specific mobile web browsers. The Commission went on to find that Google held a dominant position on the first three of those markets.
- IanCal 4y ago
  Yes, if my wording of "one market" is confusing hopefully this makes it clear: You don't really get in trouble for just growing your business within a market. You get in trouble for abusing your dominant position in one market to influence another. You can see this in the restrictions identified > those contained in ‘distribution agreements’, requiring manufacturers of mobile devices to pre-install the general search (Google Search) and (Chrome) browser apps in order to be able to obtain a licence from Google to use its app store (Play Store); They used their position of having a huge influence with Play Store to force manufacturers to include google search and chrome, which are unrelated. > those contained in ‘anti-fragmentation agreements’, under which the operating licences necessary for the pre-installation of the Google Search and Play Store apps could be obtained by mobile device manufacturers only if they undertook not to sell devices running versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google; They used their position with Android to force manufacturers to push google search and the play store by not letting them even build other devices without approval. > those contained in ‘revenue share agreements’, under which the grant of a share of Google’s advertising revenue to the manufacturers of mobile devices and the mobile network operators concerned was subject to their undertaking not to pre-install a competing general search service on a predefined portfolio of devices. They used their advertising business to force out competitors in search. You can argue this is one market if you want but it's clear this isn't competing on the merits of google search.

AnssiH 4y ago

The market in question is licensable smartphone operating systems, which is not a market Apple operates in (edit: well, other markets are involved too, see sibling thread). They (Commission and Court) never claimed that there aren't any markets they both operate in (which there obviously are). See the decision for more details, AFAICS it talks about Google's claim that Apple provides enough competitive constraint starting from section 145: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=265421&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4079 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...

izacus 4y ago
And I continue to claim that looking at market this myopically doesn't actually represent the full harm and prevents the courts from making better decisions across the board. Just because Apple doesn't allow people to pay them money to deploy iOS it doesn't mean it has no effect on us consumers across the EU. With this kind of thinking they'll just send a signal that building Apple-style locked DRM platforms is the only way to succeed - instead of building platforms that can be reused across manufacturers and can provide diversity in the market. I really don't want to see another reenactment of Symbian with it's self-destroying fragmentation against Apple.
bluGill 4y ago
If you define your market narrowly enough you can make everyone a monopoly. Sometimes what is needed is to step back and say the definition is too narrow.
- pyrale 4y ago
  The issue isn't about being a monopoly, it's about using a dominant position to force the other party to use other products. As soon as you successfully pressure someone into that kind of deal, it is pretty obvious that the product you use as leverage is dominant in some way.

lucozade 4y ago

The market they were considering was for OSs that were licensed to hardware manufacturers. And they did that because the abuse they were investigating was in those license agreements. They specifically excluded Apple (and Blackberry) as competitors in that market because they don't license to external hardware manufacturers. Google didn't contest that definition.

izacus 4y ago
Yes, and that's a myopic exclusion that ignores the fact that we want more manufacturers to license their OS, not less.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- junofan 4y ago
  The government is not a great tool for getting what you want.
  - Iolaum 4y ago
    While I agree with that, I would welcome a recommendation for a better tool.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lucozade 4y ago
  Not sure that makes any sense in the context of this investigation. The only possible difference including Apple would have made is in concluding that Google isn't dominant and thus restricting browsers and search within the license had much less material impact. In other words, it would either have no effect or have the effect of letting Google off for its restrictive practices. And investigating Apple for its licensing agreements with its hardware supplier probably would be a bit pointless. Now, should the EU be investigating the lack of hardware freedom in some ecosystems including Apple's? Sure, sounds eminently sensible. But that's completely different to what the EU was investigating here.

unity1001 4y ago

Civil law doesn't work like that. Its precise. You cant just 'interpret' things to widen or shrink the scope. You can't include things that are not directly specified in the law or in the lawsuit. If the lawsuit is about software licensed to hardware manufacturers, the lawsuit is about it. Another lawsuit will need to be opened to deal with software licensed to end users. Its somewhat like iterative software development. The scope is kept as precise as possible.