8 ms·

A summary of the original findings by the European Commission (1): "By decision of 18 July 2018, the Commission fined Google for having abused its dominant pos

• nilsbunger 4y ago
  #2 is the same thing Microsoft got busted for by US antitrust in the late 90s. Microsoft had required computer vendors to NOT sell computers with other OSes (eg Linux). At one point they insisted computer vendors pay for a Windows license on all computers they shipped, even ones shipped without Windows.
  • sylware 4y ago
    Now, it is implicit, and you better care or the hidden OEM price of doz, will skyrocket for _you_. Even, rumors says that a future doz update may brick _your_ hardware...
  • Dalewyn 4y ago
    Is it? My reading of #2 suggests Google just didn't want phones with ancient or beta versions of Android in the market with Google branding. Fairly reasonable demand, if you ask me. #1 is right up the alley that busted Microsoft, though.
    • pyrale 4y ago
      > Is it? My reading of #2 suggests Google just didn't want phones with ancient or beta versions of Android in the market with Google branding. Judging only by gp's message, it also targets any would-be competitor's fork of Android.
    • ssddanbrown 4y ago
      #2 sounds like it would prevent manufacturers from developing or using Android forks on completely other devices so, for example, you could not sell a device with Amazon's Fire OS (Even without Google's apps, so no hindrance to Google's branding) while also selling other Android devices with Google's apps. Would seriously hinder entry-to-market for Android-based forks. To be clear, I have not read the original agreements to confirm this is the case, it's just my interpretation of #2.
    • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
      > versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google That could include deprecated versions and any forks.
    • aeturnum 4y ago
      > #2 suggests Google just didn't want phones with ancient or beta versions of Android in the market with Google branding I think that would have been acceptable - my reading of #2 is that if you sold phones with a fork of Android, even if that phone did not have Google branding, Google would not allow you to sell *any* phones with Google branding. That does seem very similar to the Microsoft example.
    • josefx 4y ago
      > with Google branding Then the rule was overly broad, since it also prevented them from selling Android phones without Google branding. I think Amazon was involved in that lawsuit after it had issues finding a manufacturer that wasn't bound by that rule.
    • Tuna-Fish 4y ago
      Requiring that someone cannot use Google branding on a phone with an ancient version of Android is legal. Requiring that someone cannot use Google branding on any device they manufacture or sell, if they also manufacture or sell devices without Google branding that use ancient versions of Android, is entirely illegal in the EU.
  • saurik 4y ago
    AFAIK the idea isn't that you can't ship devices running other operating systems but that you can't ship devices running non-compliant forks of Android, which I do agree is nigh unto the same thing--as Android is open source and that's a decision Google already made--but I think is worth noting explicitly as others sometimes see it as different (both because it doesn't prevent a greenfield alternative, and as Google gave away Android for free and arguably didn't have to--though I kind of think they originally did to pull off the coalition--and so this is one of the ways they maintain ecosystem control without being closed source, which they arguably could just do now without issue... I mean, they've already gone back hard on the level of openness they started with, and for a year or so around Android 3.x they were closed source, which I have oft claimed was to stifle Amazon).
    • oblio 4y ago
      > I mean, they've already gone back hard on the level of openness they started with From what I understand, AOSP is not dead, but it's definitely far behind the latest versions of Android. The default apps are not updated, the UI toolkit is behind, most of the new services used by everything in Android are the proprietary bits. It's basically Darwin at this point, yeah, open source, but in no way shape or form if you build Darwin, do you get Mac OS.
      • saurik 4y ago
        (By "gone back hard" I don't mean "has returned to" but "did a 180 away from". Maybe you are just expanding, but it sort of sounded like you were disagreeing, when in fact I am fully on board. I remember when they started and their stated goal had been to separate all of their build and hosting infrastructure from Google so everyone was working with and seeing live commits to collaborate.)
    • tomcam 4y ago
      More periods next time plz
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • at-fates-hands 4y ago
    The video deposition of Gates was pretty damning during their anti-trust case. I just remember watching it and having my image of Gates shattered right in front of me. The amount of unhinged arrogance and hubris he had was startling. I know it really damaged his clean cut, good guy image and many of my friends said it completely reversed their opinion of him.
    • iforgotpassword 4y ago
      Do you think today's Gates really learned his lesson and became a better person, or just better at putting on a show?
      • b800h 4y ago
        Time alone mellows out most people.
      • tomcam 4y ago
        How many times did he ride Jeffrey Epstein’s plane?
    • intelVISA 4y ago
      Great vid, I don't fully blame him he had to play the game. What's amusing is other equally unhinged tech giants pretending they don't do the same.
    • q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
      I found a highlights video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRelVFm7iJE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRelVFm7iJE (I see the full 11 hour deposition is also on YouTube, but I think I'll save that for another day.) So far, being 10 minutes in, I see a little bit of what you mean, but I haven't gotten to anything "unhinged" yet. He just seems like a bit of a smug nerd who's clearly enjoying going toe-to-toe with one of the country's top lawyers. Do you remember anything that jumped out for you from the deposition? I'd love to see more of what you're getting at.
  • dekhn 4y ago
    what's funny is that most people think of that trial as being about Microsoft "putting IE in the operating system". Which is hilarious, because where else is your core HTTP fetching DLL, your core HTML parsing DLL, etc, going to go otherwise? A Chromebook is basically an operating system running Chrome and more or less nothing else, vindicating Microsoft's technical decision.
    • bb88 4y ago
      Microsoft's claim at the time was that IE couldn't be removed from the system because it had been integrated into the OS. The government was able to show otherwise. It really had nothing to do with the architecture, but the legal arguments Microsoft's lawyers were making. But despite that, let's not gloss over about what MS did. If they had been successful there wouldn't have been one web, there would have been two: One for MS (ActiveX and proprietary MS extensions) and one for MacOS/Linux/Netscape/Mozilla/Opera etc. This would have been part of their "Embrace/Extend/Extinguish" strategy they were known for at the time.
      • dekhn 4y ago
        No, the government didn't show otherwise (in my opinion). They showed you could remove the component, but it degraded essential functionality because IE and the components (HTTP, HTML and form display) depended on the (the OS did, for updates and other applications). I mean the IE the software component, not the browser, because MSFT comingled them at the OS level. At the time, they planned on replacing much of the user interface with web controls, and even today you can see many vestiges of Internet Explorer-like behavior even though IE is gone. i woudl have agreed with you in the past but when I was curous and went back through all the cases I was surprised to see that I think (from a technical perspective) MSFT was completely right to do what they want, and the main issue was that they simply didn't understand how to win a case in court.
    • josefx 4y ago
      > Which is hilarious, because where else is your core HTTP fetching DLL, your core HTML parsing DLL, etc, going to go otherwise? Microsoft insisted that the OS needed the internet explorer executable, not only the rendering engine components. You couldn't even run windows update without it opening IE - in order to load a native ActiveX component that then performed the work. They where desperate to make everything depend on IE without a plan of how to make good use of it, which shouldn't be surprising, back then any complex use of IE would have blue screened the entire system. > vindicating Microsoft's technical decision. Imagine a ChromeOS based on IE5 and tell me why I shouldn't break down in hysterical laughter just thinking about it.
• guelo 4y ago
  The irony is that if Google had not licensed Android and only manufactured its own devices, like Apple does, it could restrict consumer options much more harshly without EU fines and restrictions.
  • dahfizz 4y ago
    Theoretically, yes. But I am confident the EU would find other ways to extract fines from Google in that case.
    • stingraycharles 4y ago
      “Extract fines” makes it sound like the EU is the evil one here, rather than Google abusing its position.
      • dahfizz 4y ago
        The world is not a child's cartoon. It can be simultaneously true that Google is a scummy monopolist and the EU is not acting in good faith.
        • pmyteh 4y ago
          It's acting in good faith insofar as it does care about establishing transparent markets (and also protecting citizen privacy). It's fortunate (at least for itself) that these ambitions are entirely consistent with political expediency - which means they can pursue them without reserve. If an EU company did similar it might not be hit so hard (which would be hypocritical). But that doesn't make this action (a fine for obviously anticompetitive action) in bad faith, so much as it would make the other (lack of fine) so.
        • tremon 4y ago
          If you're accusing others of acting in bad faith you need to substantiate that. With a proper argument. Otherwise you're not acting in good faith yourself.
• jmyeet 4y ago
  So I have no doubt Google threw their weight around in the Android space. It's known that they impose conditions for access to the Google suite of apps. But I have a thought that I have a hard time reconciling. Imagine Google had gone the Apple route of vertically integrating handset production, distribution and sale in the same way Apple did. If they had, there would be no antitrust issue, just like there isn't with Apple. That seems weird. How is having third-party manufacturers (well, really it's just Samsung now) create more antitrust issues than the Apple model? That just doesn't seem right.
  • riffraff 4y ago
    there was a brief period of time when mobile OSs were shitty but plenty. Android made a two-player competition better, but it did so at the expenses of other competing OSs which could not gains foothold. It's practically the story of BeOS vs Windows.
  • stefan_ 4y ago
    Well, one way to lose an antitrust case is putting obviously anticompetitive clauses into contracts, like here. This is much easier to prove than the whole "customer harm through abuse of dominant market position" thing! Much like when Jobs called up all the book publishers and told them straight up "we gotta agree on one price among us, and remember we are doing this to harm Amazon who we both hate". Now this was a slam dunk prosecution!
  • michaelmrose 4y ago
    If me and my wife decide to run with the bulls there is no legal wrong doing so I don't understand why child protective services took little suzy away just because she a five year old had to run away in stark terror from a ton of hooves and fury barely escaping with her life! Differing relationships come with differing obligations. It appears fairly straightforward that its illegal in Europe to impose such obligations on other market players. If they couldn't abide by that they could have declined to do business in the continent. It's not really weird that different places have different rules.
  • moritonal 4y ago
• pooper 4y ago
  > By decision of 18 July 2018 So they haven't paid this fine for over four years now and there is no penalty for it? Just because they have deep enough pockets to afford expensive lawyers? I am sure not having to pay those four billion in fines for over four years more than pays the cost of these lawyers even if they eventually have to pay this fine, right? I mean I am glad to see a big fine like this but surely the fines must go up every day it is left unpaid.