Slashdot Mirror
Google Appeals $5 Billion EU Fine In Android Case (wsj.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wall Street Journal: Alphabet's Google on Tuesday said it filed an appeal of the European Union's $4.97 billion antitrust fine (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source) for allegedly abusing the dominance of its Android operating system for mobile phones. But Google said it has no plans to ask for so-called interim measures to pause application of the decision. Without further action, Google will have to meet a deadline at the end of October to end the behavior the EU says is anticompetitive or face additional fines of up to 5% of average daily global revenue for each day it doesn't comply. Google had promised that it would appeal the decision when the European Commission, the bloc's antitrust regulator, delivered it in mid-July. The commission said that Google broke the block's competition laws in part by strong-arming phone makers that use its free Android operating system to pre-install its namesake search engine, from which the company makes the bulk of its advertising revenue.
In the Android case, the European Commission has ordered Google to stop making phone manufacturers pre-install its search app and the Chrome web browser if they want to pre-install Google's Play store, which is the main way to download Android apps. The bloc also ordered Google to end restrictions that discourage manufacturers from selling devices that run unofficial versions of Android. It contends both restrictions illegally constrained competing search engines and operating systems. Google has argued that Android, which is free for manufacturers to use, has increased competition among smartphone makers, lowering prices for consumers. The company has said the allegation that it stymied competing apps is false because manufacturers typically install many rival apps on Android devices, and consumers can easily download others.
In the Android case, the European Commission has ordered Google to stop making phone manufacturers pre-install its search app and the Chrome web browser if they want to pre-install Google's Play store, which is the main way to download Android apps. The bloc also ordered Google to end restrictions that discourage manufacturers from selling devices that run unofficial versions of Android. It contends both restrictions illegally constrained competing search engines and operating systems. Google has argued that Android, which is free for manufacturers to use, has increased competition among smartphone makers, lowering prices for consumers. The company has said the allegation that it stymied competing apps is false because manufacturers typically install many rival apps on Android devices, and consumers can easily download others.
The bloc also ordered Google to end restrictions that discourage manufacturers from selling devices that run unofficial versions of Android.
So you make a free, open source system and the antitrust laws bring additional requirements on you? Google may very well say "OK, it's all proprietary from now on, go fuck yourself. No unofficial versions of Android at all, are you happy now?". Why would they have to put up with this absurdity when say Microsoft has never been bothered with it?
Is that what the incompetent bureaucrats are aiming for? After all, even the parliament approved a stupid copyright law recently, the EU is really making some big mistakes these days.
Is there a monopoly or a trust when you don't have to use Android devices?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Oh yes it most certainly is. I'm not sure how their OEM licensing policy works now but at one point they prohibited OEM sellers from selling machines with no OS because they claimed that people would just use that option and pirate Windows. Dell eventually got around that by shipping computers with FreeDOS but for a while it made it difficult for Linux users to avoid paying the "Windows Tax". Microsoft's OEM policy also prevented OEM sellers from selling machines that were configured to dual-boot. That single-handedly killed any chance of success for BeOS and significantly reduced adoption of Linux. Any OEM sellers that violated these terms risked having their ability to sell OEM Windows licenses stripped which would mean that they would have to buy full-priced licenses. That alone would make their machines so expensive it would be almost suicide to even attempt angering the Microsoft gods.