Slashdot Mirror
EU Regulators Fine Google Record $5 Billion in Android Case (reuters.com)
The European Union hit Alphabet's Google with a record antitrust fine of $5.06 billion on Monday, a decision that could loosen the company's grip on its biggest growth engine: mobile phones. From a report:The European Commission ordered Google to end the illegal conduct within 90 days or face additional penalties of up to 5 percent of parent Alphabet's average daily worldwide turnover. The EU enforcer also dismissed Google's arguments citing Apple as a competitor to Android devices, saying the iPhone maker does not sufficiently constrain Google because of its higher prices and switching costs for users. The European Commission finding is the most consequential decision made in its eight-year antitrust battle with Google. The fine significantly outstrips the $2.8B charge Brussels imposed on the company last year for favoring its own site in comparison shopping searches. The decision takes aim at a core part of Google's business strategy over the past decade, outlawing restrictions on its Android operating system that allegedly entrenched Google's dominance in online search at a time when consumers were moving from desktop to mobile devices. Android is the operating system used in more than 80 per cent of the world's smartphones and is vital to the group's future revenues as more users rely on mobile gadgets for search services. Google has denied wrongdoing.
The European Commission took issues with the following practices: In particular, Google:
1. 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);
2. 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 3. 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"). Update: Google has announced that it would be appealing against the record fine. In a statement, the company said, "Android has created more choice for everyone, not less. A vibrant ecosystem, rapid innovation and lower prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition. We will appeal the Commission's decision."
Update 2: In a blog post, Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, said, the European Commission's decision ignores and misses several facts. He wrote: Today, the European Commission issued a competition decision against Android, and its business model. The decision ignores the fact that Android phones compete with iOS phones, something that 89 percent of respondents to the Commission's own market survey confirmed. It also misses just how much choice Android provides to thousands of phone makers and mobile network operators who build and sell Android devices; to millions of app developers around the world who have built their businesses with Android; and billions of consumers who can now afford and use cutting-edge Android smartphones. Today, because of Android, there are more than 24,000 devices, at every price point, from more than 1,300 different brands, including Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Polish, Romanian, Spanish and Swedish phone makers.
[...] The free distribution of the Android platform, and of Google's suite of applications, is not only efficient for phone makers and operators -- it's of huge benefit for developers and consumers. If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn't include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem. So far, the Android business model has meant that we haven't had to charge phone makers for our technology, or depend on a tightly controlled distribution model. [...] Rapid innovation, wide choice, and falling prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition and Android has enabled all of them. Today's decision rejects the business model that supports Android, which has created more choice for everyone, not less. We intend to appeal. Update 3: The French government said on Wednesday that it welcomes the record fine imposed on Google by European Union regulators, with a government spokesman describing it as an "excellent decision."
A number of companies, and startups that compete with Google have weighed in on the development. Open Markets Institute Executive Director Barry Lynn, said, "We hope U.S. enforcers of competition law will learn from and follow this example in both of these cases." Consumer Watchdog Director John Simpson, said, "The U.S. Federal Trade Commission or Department of Justice should also act to end Google's monopolistic abuses, instead of letting the Europeans be the only cop on the antitrust beat." Yelp SVP Public Policy Luther Lowe, said, "The European Commission's ruling of additional illegal conduct by Google on smartphones is another important step in restoring competition, innovation and consumer welfare in the digital economy; the EU must ensure complete compliance from a recalcitrant Google and the U.S. must take action to provide American consumers with similar protections."
Elevation Partners' Roger McNamee, said, Commissioner Vestager's ruling today not only enhances competition and investment opportunities in Europe, but it will have a cascading effect into U.S. markets, where antitrust enforcers have so far failed to take meaningful action." Privacy startup Disconnect CEO Casey Oppenheim, said, "Other players in the digital ecosystem may finally be able to fairly compete with Google, giving meaningful choice to consumers."
The European Commission took issues with the following practices: In particular, Google:
1. 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);
2. 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 3. 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"). Update: Google has announced that it would be appealing against the record fine. In a statement, the company said, "Android has created more choice for everyone, not less. A vibrant ecosystem, rapid innovation and lower prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition. We will appeal the Commission's decision."
Update 2: In a blog post, Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, said, the European Commission's decision ignores and misses several facts. He wrote: Today, the European Commission issued a competition decision against Android, and its business model. The decision ignores the fact that Android phones compete with iOS phones, something that 89 percent of respondents to the Commission's own market survey confirmed. It also misses just how much choice Android provides to thousands of phone makers and mobile network operators who build and sell Android devices; to millions of app developers around the world who have built their businesses with Android; and billions of consumers who can now afford and use cutting-edge Android smartphones. Today, because of Android, there are more than 24,000 devices, at every price point, from more than 1,300 different brands, including Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Polish, Romanian, Spanish and Swedish phone makers.
[...] The free distribution of the Android platform, and of Google's suite of applications, is not only efficient for phone makers and operators -- it's of huge benefit for developers and consumers. If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn't include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem. So far, the Android business model has meant that we haven't had to charge phone makers for our technology, or depend on a tightly controlled distribution model. [...] Rapid innovation, wide choice, and falling prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition and Android has enabled all of them. Today's decision rejects the business model that supports Android, which has created more choice for everyone, not less. We intend to appeal. Update 3: The French government said on Wednesday that it welcomes the record fine imposed on Google by European Union regulators, with a government spokesman describing it as an "excellent decision."
A number of companies, and startups that compete with Google have weighed in on the development. Open Markets Institute Executive Director Barry Lynn, said, "We hope U.S. enforcers of competition law will learn from and follow this example in both of these cases." Consumer Watchdog Director John Simpson, said, "The U.S. Federal Trade Commission or Department of Justice should also act to end Google's monopolistic abuses, instead of letting the Europeans be the only cop on the antitrust beat." Yelp SVP Public Policy Luther Lowe, said, "The European Commission's ruling of additional illegal conduct by Google on smartphones is another important step in restoring competition, innovation and consumer welfare in the digital economy; the EU must ensure complete compliance from a recalcitrant Google and the U.S. must take action to provide American consumers with similar protections."
Elevation Partners' Roger McNamee, said, Commissioner Vestager's ruling today not only enhances competition and investment opportunities in Europe, but it will have a cascading effect into U.S. markets, where antitrust enforcers have so far failed to take meaningful action." Privacy startup Disconnect CEO Casey Oppenheim, said, "Other players in the digital ecosystem may finally be able to fairly compete with Google, giving meaningful choice to consumers."
Whatever shall Google do? That is 10 weeks of profit to have a complete OS monopoly in a set of 30+ countries on mobile phones. Despite this OS being basically just spyware, it also doesn't matter: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/23/google-owner-alphabet-reports-earnings
So what happens if google just refuses to pay?
in the court room.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
This was my second favorite thing of all I got to see the future and I will be in a good life and I can be a good friend for you I think so I can be a good man for me I will be a happy g'day and a half and I think so much to me I will probably take a little longer to see.
This just an example of why the UK voted Brexit
Just 8 years! Anyway itâ(TM)s more of monopoly tax, i.e. âoeGoogle, you can screw EU citizens further, hereâ(TM)s the price.â
I'm normally all for fining the crap out of mega-corps which show nothing but contempt for the rules, but I don't get this.
The truth is that people are choosing Google because their competitors are shit, or in the case of Apple even worse. What's the point here, Google are supposed to provide shit services that nobody wants to use so their competitors can prosper?
There is literally nothing that prevents anyone from setting up competing services other than the facts that it would be an insane amount of work and incredibly expensive, but that's not Google's problem. Android is even mostly open source, any would be competitors are free to just blatantly copy it. All they have to do is provide their own store, which one would imagine wouldn't be too hard. The hard part is to get people to use it in any significant number, but again, that's not Google's problem as long as they don't blatantly try to prevent it - which they aren't. Saying "you can't use our apps if you do that" doesn't cut it, you're still free to provide your own, or use someone else's. Making your alternatives competitive and getting people to use them are your problems, not Google's.
Google are where they are because they've built a solid reputation with consumers, not because they did something shady.
First MS in the US.
Now Google in the EU.
Apple is worse than either of them on this subject, yet somehow escapes unscathed.
That's some fine logic there, Lou. Do you do any actual thinking as well?
*bureaucrats
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Woah somebody is butt hurt.... you're some stupid dude who got fired for your bigotry?
I'm so tired of this anti-EU bullshit. You really need to find a new scapegoat for the failure of your local politicians.
In order for the EU to remove power from any national government, besaid national government would first have to agree with this or, second, there needs to be an unanimous vote by all member states to remove that power.
Any power that is currently not in the hands of national governments and can be overruled by directives is not in their hands because all governments of all member states previously voted to take away that power and give it to the EU to the mutual benefit of all member states. What's even worse about posts like yours is that the people who criticize the EU now for not being democratic enough are exactly the same people who in the past ensured that the EU has this structure, most notably the UK, whose main goal has always been to make the European Parliament as weak as possible, prevent a EU wide defence structure, not having a EU president, etc. The European Parliament is relatively powerless and commissioners appointed by the governments of member states (and voted for by European Parliament, which directly represents all EU citizens) have a relatively high amount of power because member countries wanted to make sure that the European Parliament has less to say than national parliaments.
And what's bizarre about complaining about the monopoly of search engines so late? By design, the commissions mostly become active in such matters after the complaints have reached national level and the whole process takes time.
In a nutshell, quit those silly complaints about the EU. Rather complain about the local politicians like Margaret Thatcher who designed it that way and opt for local politicians that want to give the EU Parliament more power. Remember, the EU parliament is directly voted for by the citizens of the member states.
This is not a question of technology, and the EU has a long history of protecting consumers. The last sentence shows you don't understand how the EU works, which makes your desire to criticise it baffling.
Fired? More like basement dude who's never had a job.
rump is very famous in russia
Why Google? Apple essentially blocks tons of things to prevent competition on its platform...
Here's a clearer summary of what Google have been up to as reported by The Guardian.
EU Competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager says:
Google required manufacturers to pre-install the Google search and browser apps on Android phones, otherwise they wouldnâ(TM)t be allowed to use Google Play (its app service).
Google paid manufacturers and network operators to make sure that only the Google search app was installed on devices.
Google has restricted the development of competing mobile phone operating systems, which could have provided a platform for rival search engines.
Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement its dominance as a search engine.
These practices have denied rivals a chance to innovate and to compete on the merits.
They have denied European consumers the benefit of effective competition in the very important mobile sphere.
And this is illegal under EU antitrust rules.
Todayâ(TM)s ruling states:
Google has prevented device manufacturers from using any alternative version of Android that was not approved by Google (Android forks).
In order to be able to pre-install on their devices Googleâ(TM)s proprietary apps, including the Play Store and Google Search, manufacturers had to commit not to develop or sell even a single device running on an Android fork.
The Commission found that this conduct was abusive as of 2011, which is the date Google became dominant in the market for app stores for the Android mobile operating system.
"powers of national governments to concentrate it in brussels" = democratically agreed by the European Citizen (as much as the Brexit was)
"potential monopoly on internet search engines (Which there pretty much has been for a decade)" = again as the Microsoft monopoly story: it is LEGAL to have a monopoly, it is ILLEGAL to abuse it to gain market share in another area. It is extraordinary simple, yet people can't grasp it.
Various sources state that this fine has more to do with Google's "monopoly" in search than about any inherent issues in Android which makes me think: are there any real alternatives to Google Search? I regularly try other search engines and none has come close to Google's breadth and coverage by a very long shot. If the EU is advocating for ending Google's monopoly in search, where the alternatives are? I can only think of Baidu but it's mostly a Chinese search engine. Bing just sucks. Yahoo is basically Bing. DuckDuckGo is a search engine aggregator. Yandex was a Google competitor in CIS but its dominance ended around 2010 once Google engineers implemented morphology support for Cyrillic languages.
As for Android forks, the EU authorities have lost their minds completely. There are dozens of Android forks. In Asia all major OEMs (Xiaomi, Huawei, Oppo, Lenovo, etc.) have their own Android forks with their own app stores. Also, Android fragmentation is the least anyone in the world would want - it will basically make Android a lot less competitive that it is vs. Apple which has the only iOS version which runs all their devices (sans the ones which Apple no longer supports).
In short, this fine is just absurd and I'm not sure what is that the EU really wants from Google. Money?
"democratically agreed by the European Citizen "
Really? When did the UK get a referendum on the maastricht treaty then?
3. 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").
I'll be interested to see how this affects Google's newest decision to "disallow" google apps from being installed on custom ROMs without jumping through hoops, or, more boradly, the blocks which have been in place for ages preventing certain apps (like Netflix) being installed on unapproved devices.
"In order for the EU to remove power from any national government, besaid national government would first have to agree with this or, second, there needs to be an unanimous vote by all member states to remove that pow"
Oh really? You mean like the maastricht treaty where is was a case of sign it or you'll no longer be considered a member of the EEC and will have to pay duty on all imports to the EU? Is that the sort of agreement you're talking about?
EU a friend or Foe on this one?
The EU works for noone but itself and established political parties. It's a parallel governement that lives in its own little world and is being used to circumvent checks and balances on national levels. The parliament is just as much part of this as the commission.
One recent example is the exclusion of small parties from the EU election. German politicians tried to exclude small parties on a national level but failed at the German constitutional court. So they brought it to the EU where it was passed by the parliament. A resolution tailor-made for Germany. Your "direct vote" is worth jack shit if they rig it from the get go.
So of course you get more and more anti-EU sentiments. They have become too far detached from the citizens they are supposedly representing.
Failing? The rest of the planet wishes they'd fail like us.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have such a Deja Vu with respects to this case and the Microsoft anti-trust case. There it was browser, here it is search, but the methods are so similar.
Until today I thought Google might be of a different breed than Microsoft. I stand corrected.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Yes, the EU is the revived Roman Empire that the Bible warns us of. You could also correctly call it the Fourth Reich. They are trying to extend their reach into the US by using fines and other tactics to drain cash from American companies like Google. The antitrust fine is a lot like a dirty cop planting weed on a suspect, then "finding" the weed and sending the suspect to prison. There's some really gay shit going on here.
More like a troll with no agenda, who is out to get reactions like yours 'for teh lulz'.
I have this hypothesis that whenever someone feels the urge to declare what he has to say as "facts", it's anything but facts.
Thanks for supporting my hypothesis.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It was passed by a parliament that you directly voted for (assuming you vote in the European elections). That's how democracy works.
Oh yeah, could it be (drumroll) having OEM computer manufacturers install Internet Explorer by default without a way to effectively remove it? It's ironic what's happened to IE/Edge these days though. :)
We'll make great pets
Of abuse of power and anti competitive behavior? Google's _FREE_ Android implementation that can be used in any form, just without the Play store, or EU's massive 5 billion dollar fine towards a company that barely competes in actual sales with other handset manufacturers. It's another case where the fine and punishment causes more of the harm it's intended to protect against than the actual supposed wrong doing. EU is absolutely insane.
Laughs in iOS
https://restoreprivacy.com/goo...
I've always felt it unethical to use the products of a company that makes money from advertising https://www.youtube.com/watch?... but this finding has really woken me up - this kind of behavior is why I started to boycott Microsoft decades ago
Replacing GMail is gonna be a hassle and take a long time because I'm not using an independent domain. Weaning myself off YouTube is gonna super difficult.
The EU has no tech industry ... because EU businesses have to follow EU laws. I don't think this is a good thing. But.
US companies can't just side-step local laws by claiming they are based outside the EU. They have got away with it for several years, and the EU is only now finally responsing.
Follow the law, or stop doing business with the EU. Your choice.
I remember countries like The Netherlands voting against new EU laws, only to see the same laws passed without their vote a little while later. You forgot to mention such anti-democratic moves. You also forgot to mention the wide-spread corruption of the EU Parliament, such as voting for their insane pension plans, or voting against more transparency concerning their insane monthly expenses bonus. Therefore, you are into propaganda, which is also a EU sin. Let me guess, you earn money as a EU leech, and to hell with democracy and privacy.
when people start comments in the headline and finish them in the body?
Indeed! He even posted as an anonymous coward! The tell-tale sign of a troll, or at least someone who doesn't have the balls to put any nickname-reputation on the line with what he says!
I'm disgusted by those anonymous coward posts, of people who act as if they have something worthwhile to say, but really don't and just deliver one-liners. I spit on such hypocrisy!
*spit*
Because most countries use representative democracy. And if you cannot be bothered to understand that, you shouldn't even be allowed to vote.
--
The world is divided in two categories:
those with a loaded gun and those who dig. You dig.
Your democratically elected government at the time made this choice, as was the choice of your democratically elected government whether to leave the EU and/or whether there should have been a referendum about it or not.
In your case the choice to join the Maastricht Treaty without a referendum was made by the conservative government of Sir John Major, which also negotiated important aspects of the treaty for the UK.
You know, it's not as if this information is kind of secret, you can look it up yourself next time.
Yes, that's how democracy works. So if the majority ever votes and decides you can be shot for treason, than that's fine too, since it was democratically voted.
> In order for the EU to remove power from any national government,
They did this via the back door, coopting national politicians to give it away without sold constitutional foundations, and are now reaping the consequences of not doing it properly, not doing it transparently, not creating institutions with proper checks and balances in place, and not bring the population along with them.
Party democracies are easier to subvert than democracies with independent representatives.
Undemocratic institutions that pretend to be democratic are not to be lauded.
You don't understand that so go fuck yourself.
This is the EU engaging in a trade war without calling it such.
As the UK is discovering the idea of being "free" at all costs is pretty dumb. If you want to be prosperous, if you want to trade, you are going to have to agree common rules. Some you might not like.
No county is an economic island, even the ones that are physical islands. And the UK isn't even that.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Europe which doesn't even build smartphones is processing google over monopoly? Which interests would Europe be protecting?
I've been developing Android devices for many years and can tell you from first hand experience, Google has been getting away with a lot of anti-competitive practices and favoritism. Unless you are one of the top 5 brands in the world, they simply will not talk to you. No matter how hard you try or show willingness to pay, they will not "certify" Android devices from anyone but their close circle of suppliers, with whom they have very complex agreements. This is why a very high percentage of devices are sold without the Play store pre-installed. It also blocks other things from working, such as full support for the DRM used by Netflix, HBO, and many other VOD apps. You are given the freedom of choice to choose any brand, as long as it is the ones they allow you to choose from.
The big parties in the parliament voted to eliminated their own competition. That's not democracy. That's the EU way: concentrate and secure power for the entrenched.
Actually Android follows the Philosophy of Palm Treo, open source OS with free customization and without voiding the warranty. Seems like since the past 5 years this is less and less apparent. What Google says is different from what we use. None of the Android OS is Customizable, cant move apps from device storage to External storage. Cant free up space easily with low storage devices. All one thing is that Users are forced to Use what Google is offering.
"if you want to trade, you are going to have to agree common rules"
It's called the WTO, you may have heard of it.
Many EU country's deeply resent that American company's continually dominate tech. Across the board they are under regulatory attack.
In the long run it only highlights that EU company's are not producing competitive products. From Electric cars to search engines the story is the same.
Resurrect Symbian?
Unsure how EU expects market to open up with this action. EU were also looking at tax avoidance too.
Ssssh, the grown ups are talking.
Except you prize clown - signing maastricht was NOT in the conservative party manifesto so the people had no idea this was going to happen if they voted for them.
When did the UK get a referendum on any law, treaty or statute? That's not how democracy works in the UK.
Now go back to playing with your toys, the grown ups are talking.
This is just another cash grab by the EU. Proof: The EU was already trying to find a way to more cash off of big companies that are using other countries as tax havens. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-tax-digital/eu-tells-tech-firms-it-wants-to-tax-profit-not-revenue-idUSKCN1GJ2QX
I have a quite similar hypothesis concerning the use of the word "proof"...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
kewl story bra.
They feel soar about Nokia
Giving a referendum on whether to remain in the EU was NOT in the 2015 conservative party manifesto, so I guess that shouldn't have happened.
I just want a phone I can use, not one that uses me.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I guess most countries would prefer a trading system where their concerns and goals actually matter.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Google and Microsoft need to insist that they aren't monopolies.
Hardly an innovation — the US did just that to Microsoft 20 years ago, EU is decades behind.
Except Microsoft was an actual monopoly in the world of desktop operating systems back then, so deviating from the free market principles may have been justified.
Google is merely a dominant player in the world of smart-phones and has not done anything to unfairly sabotage the second-biggest (Apple) the way Microsoft deliberately sabotaged DR-DOS. Google.com opens just fine in Safari.
If a European user does not like the Android offering, he can by an iPhone instead.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
> Google has restricted the development of competing mobile phone operating systems, which could have provided a platform for rival search engines.
If that is true then google has violated anti-trust laws. However, Apple's 20% demonstrates that not only is Google not a monopoly position, but that there is a healthy competition.
"democratically agreed by the European Citizen "
Really? When did the UK get a referendum on the maastricht treaty then?
June 23, 2016
Microsoft has done and continues to exercise the same business tactics.
Stop right there. The European Parliament is very weak. Its actually The European Commission who wield the most power. The commission is a unelected unelected body.
So allowing a democratic referendum on returning national powers is equivalent to signing away national power without consulting the people is it? Exactly what is it you're smoking?
Amazon Fire is an example of a fork that is following Google's rules and has been at least somewhat successful.
Indeed. And GDPR is another good example at that.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
this is a dumb take and you're dumber for having said it
Issue 1 sucks and Issue 2 is shady, but neither deserves much, if any, punishment; issue 3 however is 1000% unacceptable and heads need to roll over it.
and whats wrong with that? if you don't want to sign up to the rules, then you don't get to play.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
god, so much bollox spoken about the EU - get treatment for your attachment to conspiracy theories
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
"You don't understand that so go fuck yourself." - pot kettle black
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
all these treaties are compiled with representatives from each country in the EU so UK had input to them as well. You really want the public to vote on a treaty when at least 17m don't understand the basics of the EU, trade and economics as shown by brexit?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
oh jeez, that old misunderstanding of reality and sovereignty is still going around your head?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I don't think its my grasp of reality that is faulty. Perhaps look in the mirror.
but I might be lying.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
Yes, if you're in the UK and don't like the EU and think there should have been a referendum before signing the Maastricht Treaty, then it would have made sense to you never vote for the conservative party again.
I'm sick of hearing about Google's operating system. Like /w Chrome (webkit) most of the code they didn't even write. They took existing Linux, open source tools and stacks, created a mobile shell and called it Android. That's not a bad thing and Google has certainly made positive open source contributions yet it's still mostly Linux with Google provided "chrome" on top.
Leveraging the nature of open source as cover for monopolistic behavior is logically incoherent. Google apps and Android are two distinct things. The only point of relevance is terms under which Google licenses Google apps to vendors. Terms that demand exclusivity in spaces you already have a defacto monopoly is usually a good way to get yourself bitch slapped by regulators.
For five billion dollars you could easily develop open alternatives to the entire "Google play" malware stack.
Your sense of reality definitely at fault if you blame the EU for the fact that your government decided to join the EU without holding a referendum first.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, the general idea is that instead of negotiating n over 2 treaties for all countries (e.g. 28 over 2=378) you could make one region-wide regulation instead. But of course the UK can now choose to make 27 bilateral treaties instead of having one if they wish to. That's probably totally going to reduce the amount of bureaucracy in the UK. LOL.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The idea that Google has a monopoly on anything is patently ridiculous. This is government overreach at its worst.
The $60cdn stuff is so underpowered, it is not worth discussing. It is also subsidized — by the same things EU fines Google for insisting on.
You are demanding, a $60 thing be comparable to a $600 one — dream on.
We can argue for years, whether or not this or that is better — it is all useless. The valid measure is competition. Unless Google is caught sabotaging competitors, such as by producing inferior search-results when "Safari" is found in User-Agent, there is nothing for the governments to do.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
They didn't say a peep about Nokia or Symbian back in the day. But now that Europe is no longer in control of the most popular mobile platform they are ready to start a fight.
So - if you can't have a tech industry, then NO ONE can have a tech industry?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I'll let ASML know that there is no tech industry in the EU.
As a fellow white male, we have a God given right to treat everyone else like shit.
And actually, the weaker sex likes being told this. Jordan Peterson has proven all of this.
"democratically agreed by the European Citizen "
Really? When did the UK get a referendum on the maastricht treaty then?
Only the citizens get votes in a referendum, subject.
The EU has no tech industry
Eh? There are probably more technology companies in the EU than anywhere else.
Sorry ass-hole but you did not respond to the issues the European Commission raised:
In particular, Google:
1. 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);
2. 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
3. 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").
All you said was "but but we've created choice (by limiting choice)"
Fuck off an die Google.
I don't subscribe to that analysis.
Much of the "tech industry" sprang out of the Internet or the US nuclear program/military spending, none of which had any direct equivalent in Europe.
The difference in attitude regarding laws, regulatory bodies and the consumers have other, deeper reasons which isn't as easy as just saying "we have certain laws in EU which might prove troublesome". There are reasons for the different sets of attitudes and rules, those are more important than the laws themselves. Maybe it's as easy as in Europe a lot of the corrupted, amoral assholes associated themselves with the Nazis (because that was opportunistically the thing to do if you wanted to profit) and got wiped out in the end, in the US they stayed in politics and helped the corporations screwing over the population.
I gave "stop doing business with the EU" as an option.
If Google, Facebook etc IP-banned all EU customers, I would expect the laws to swiftly change, as the howls of protest suddenly threatened the jobs of EU politicians ...
The EUs tech industries combined are only worth a fraction of their US equivalents. Like everything, it's relative.
Yes. It is completely bizarre that a partially open platform, albeit with rules and constraints, gets hit with anti-trust penalties whereas Apple's completely closed and inherently monopolistic platform does not. What's up with that?
Buying then panic-developing Android was Google's response to Apple iPhone after all. Android was a successful attempt to thwart a monopoly in the smartphone and smartphone software market. Still, Android certainly doesn't dominate the smartphone and smartphone apps market. It's a duopoly with Apple, in a knock-down cage match wit each other, if anything.
The irony is strong with this one.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
You're obviously not following the situation in the UK very closely. The problem isn't that we can't leave the EU and be prosperous, the problem is that we heave a prime minister, cabinet and civil service who do not want to leave the EU. When you're own side is working against you, and is deliberately trying to complicate the process in order to achieve their objective of remaining in the EU, then you're not going to succeed.
All of the FAANG companies need to be broken up. Android is an especially piece of shit OS that is a fucking disappointment. I've been using Android since the early days and only run the OS with CFW; but every time I get a new phone its riddled with Google garbage that you cannot avoid unless you go to CFW. Everything about the OS is Microsoft Windows in the early 2000s. The phone needs to come with everything Google being optional; not forced. Being able to "skip" account creation does not mean that the Google crap is "optional".
This is just one aspect of Google; they have other markets they dominate such as Search and ads (AdWords) as well as "streaming" on YouTube. Honestly, this fine is not big at all; it's $5b, this company has a revenue of $110b+ a year in the US alone. If you want them to feel the fine it should have been over $50b upwards of $100b; which I would have supported.
In summary, companies should fear engaging in antitrust; if they do it they should get fines up to and including at a minimum a year of their revenue... or face being broken up... Which do you prefer?
See the Microsoft case.
Yes, it is meant to actually hurt. Not be a slap on the wrist. Yes, they are willing to raise it, if the shit continues.
Yes, Google will bend over and take it.
Microsoft did. Master of turning such judgments into "free 'gettin em hooked' licenses (of purely imaginary worth) for *schools*" Microsoft.
How many big EU companies do you think are already drooling over an official Android fork for the EU. The Google substitutes are already in place. And no relevant app developer is stupid enough to miss out on such a huge market.
We'd bitch for a few months, and then never look back.
Our Android fork might even end up being popular in the US.
How in the fuck do you Ameritards (yes, true retards) still not realize that the whole "NATO obligations" game nowadays SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY exists because the for-profit-mass-murder industry has sucked America dry, and STILL wants exponentally exploding profits, which is only possible by sucking on the EU's neck too!
Except we say *FUCK OFF and die*!
YOU created ALL those damn terrorists and religitard extremist leaders surrounding Russia and oil areas *in th first place*! You literally deliberally financed, armed, trained
They use their android to dominate the rest of the internet search also.
Not that we all dont go there for the same reason we go to Walmart it fucking works.
EU are greedy retards.
Seriously. For what?
To look like a sucker?
Even a 200MHz phone with hardware encoding and a microSD slot does EVERYTHING you need from a smartphone.
Or did you mean a lapto with no useful keyboard and tiny screen that hence sucks ass?!
Gotta fund those mutha-fuckin' social programs somehow!
Only if you include heavily overvalued internet service companies...
In May 1950 French foreign minister Robert Schuman proposed the establishment of a common market for coal and steel for those countries willing to delegate control of these sectors of their economies to an independent authority. In drawing up what was called the Schuman Plan—which actually had been authored by Jean Monnet, then head of the French planning agency—French policy makers were motivated by the belief that a new economic and political framework was needed to avoid future Franco-German conflicts. The first step was to be limited, but the ultimate objective was the creation of a “United States of Europe.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/European-Coal-and-Steel-Community
So, fuck you
That's the sad part... The SJW crowd thinks they are "better", but I've come to the conclusion that the left is actually the racist group... and far more racist than anyone on the right that I have any sort of contact with.
The left has decided to break everyone down by race, gender, sexual orientation, and a host of other things. Everyone (to them) is just a member of some "oppressed" group. Well, unless you are white in which case you are pure, distilled, evil....
In fact, the left has taken it upon themselves to be outraged ON BEHALF of minorities... Talk about being fucking patronizing......
I know people who, for example, don't like blacks... (Because they are fucking racist...) But I've never seen one of those mouth-breathers stand up and pretend to speak on behalf of blacks.. Yet, I see this coming from the left ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
We had such an incident in my area not so long ago, where a bunch of snowflake liberals ran around acting all outraged over a school mascot that is done in the likeness of a certain Native American (Indian) chief.
They were just freaking out about it... However, when the local news went out and did a bunch of interviews, they couldn't find anyone, of that tribe, who was offended. Most said they were quite happy that the mascot depicted the Chief in a positive, strong, and dignified way. Not all were "pro mascot", but the worst opposition they could find was.. indifference.. i.e. some members of the tribe basically said they didn't give a crap one way or the other, but they weren't offended...
You'd think the outrage would have died down at that point.. I mean if the members of the tribe aren't upset....
But NO! The SJW's know better.. A couple of them, who were suspected of being the leaders of the protesters, were recorded on hidden camera saying (and I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact wording) that the tribe had been oppressed for so long that they couldn't be trusted to know what was offensive to them.
They basically accused this tribe (which has a HUGE casino and is very prosperous) of having Stockholm Syndrome. This tribe has had a casino for about 30 years.. i.e. they are all upper middle class at this point, and the members that make up the bulk of the tribe have never been oppressed. Nobody in that tribe that is 35 or less has ever eaten government cheese or been dependent on the white man for anything.. i.e. they don't need you holier-than-thou cunts speaking for them. They don't have Stockholm Syndrome.... But, you see, to an SJW it's just a bunch of dumb Indians who need protection, from whites, by whites who know better and are more virtuous...
The level of hubris and irony is beyond......
So my dear SJW, please continue to be outraged on behalf of groups you have no connection with. Please continue to speak on their behalf and continue your own self-hatred of your own race. If you signal hard enough somebody, somewhere, might think you are a good person... Well, until they realize that you are just as racist as those on the extreme right...
At least the racists on the right just declare their racism.. They don't hide it like the left... They don't pretend to care about minorities and at the same time think said minorities are too stupid, weak, or unsophisticated to handle their own lives.
I haven't heard of real problems from 3rd party iOS handset makers. Sounds like that's the way to go - they don't "play favorites" like Google.
Geez, again just sorry, man - sorry that you had to go through this, and you weren't able to put all of their software on your phone. That's awful. But at least you know for next time, stick with Apple.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
You should discuss that more with your mom and your conspiracy friends at school!
E and U.
This is nothing short of an overblown shakedown for perceived indiscretions. The EU really needs to worry about something important for a change.
This is how it goes for a mobile manufacturer who wants to roll Android....
M) Hi Google, Can I use your mobile OS?
G) Sure.
M) How much?
G) Free, but we ask you include our standard apps and store and make sure it hooks into the best free search engine in the market.
M) Can I fork it?
G) To ensure consistency, we would rather you didn't modify it too much, but you can customise it to a reasonable extent. Run the changes by us before you go to market.
M) I really wanted to have my own store.
G) You can do that too - include ours as well for your users to access (silly large number) of other apps as well!
What in there is unreasonable? *Free* with a few conditions, none of which a game-breaking or anti-competitive, and free.
Samsung rolls a bunch off Samsung apps on Android that duplicate the Google suite of apps, and their own store, I think the default settings use the Samsung Apps anyway The Google apps are there, but I put them in a folder and never look at them again.
Want to see anti-competitive? How about the Steam Link App on iOS? What Steam Link App you ask? The one that Apple blocked "...because reasons".
When I got into the game, 'bout 1980, IBM was having legal troubles because of "bundling".
Some time later, it was Microsoft with legal troubles because of "bundling".
Now it's Google. And bundling.
My, how things have changed!
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
Why doesn't Google/Alphabet say, "Fine. You don't like what we have to offe? We will shut it down for a week. The citizens of your various EU countries will provide some feedback about that.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
The biggest problem with democracy is that really dumb and ignorant people get to vote too. And there are a lot of those. Democracy is like letting people with no drivers license, drive taxi's, like letting painters perform surgery. But I need to get from a to b and I might need surgery at some point, what can you do.
It's a cycle. Things will turn to shit for a while. We will temporarily learn from the mistakes and eventually make the same mistakes all over again. Humanity has bad memory and evolution is very slow.
The problem is the UK wants the cake and eat it too. That is not going to happen obviously. Brexit is going to be and already is painful for many people who voted for it. That happens when you ask people to vote on things they don't and can't understand. It is like asking someone who can't read for a book review.
is it says:
You can't control the quality of your product any more, because you've been too successful with it.
Fact of the matter is, in something like a smartphone OS and app platform, quality control and simplicity and uniformity (my next phone will be familiar to me because of my last phone) are very important features.
There's a reason why a lot of people like iPhone. They are giving up freedom for quality control, willingly.
I want the same ability as a consumer to choose a quality controlled version of android, and to not have to worry that my next XYZ brand phone will behave totally differently to my previous Samsung or Pixel or whatever phone. Uniformity and lack of "gratuitous" choice is actually a valuble service to consumers, in this age of rampant complexity and crapware.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Hmmm so overcompensating in a misguided attempt to defend somebody's rights is worse than openly and maliciously trying to take them away.
I hope that rationalisation helps you sleep at night.
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
EU failed in innovation and punish Google for that ?
What a shame !
In, EU's standard so called third country, China, there is no such Google domination because China can and knows how to handle such companies.
Wake up, EU !
Shame on you.
I never said that. Either thats some feeble straw man or you can't comprehend simple english.
I've yet to encounter a political party that openly states all the steps it will take beforehand. Let alone actually achieving the goals set out by said political party.
Apple exists because OOH SHINY SHINY
Human gullibility is a safe bet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Apple install its proprietary software while ignoring competitive products too. When will the EU bring Apple to court?
And I would like I gold plated toilet seat, but I ain't going to get one.
I have a quite similar hypothesis concerning the use of the word "proof"...
Do you have a catchy term for "smug douchebag who wants to relieve himself of forming a counter-argument because of confirmation bias?"
May those race traitor scumbags have black children one day