1. 42
  1.  

  2. 22

    Well done EU! Google fully deserves this.

    Personal anecdote: I worked at Samsung on the team working on its own browser. In 2012, Android WebKit was old and problematic. Google pushed Chrome for Android and my team was disbanded “due to pressure from Google”.

    1. 4

      You’d think Google would be more confident in their own browser. I hadn’t heard your story before, that is probably the worst one I’ve heard yet. They also do things like accidentally forget to test their websites on other browsers.

      1. 2

        I think Google was correct to be afraid. (But I would think so, wouldn’t I?) Historical case of Microsoft and Internet Explorer comes to mind.

    2. 13

      Can someone explain to me how Apple gets away with a dictatorship on iOS without any lawsuits?

      • Apple controls the only app store allowed on iOS

      • Apple apps get access to features not available in third party apps

      • Third party apps aren’t allowed to compete with Apple apps in many instances and are banned from the store

      • All defaults are Apple apps, and in many cases can’t be changed to something else

      As a consumer I felt less restricted when I’ve been on Google’s platform than when I’ve been on Apple’s. I don’t have any horse in this race, I’m just curious how Apple has managed to avoid scrutiny. I’ve switched back and forth am currently using an iPhone 6S that I’ve had for over 3 years.

      1. 10

        This is not about Android, but about the Google Search monopoly. If you feel like it, read the announcement: it’s amazingly clear writing, a joy to read.

        Excerpt, emphasis added:

        The Commission decision concerns three specific types of contractual restrictions that Google has imposed on device manufacturers and mobile network operators. These have enabled Google to use Android as a vehicle to cement the dominance of its search engine. In other words, the Commission decision does not question the open source model or the Android operating system as such.

        1. 5

          There are a couple of obvious things:

          • the abuse in question is to do with Google search, Android is just a tool in this case
          • Apple has a relatively small market share, so presumably consumers have a choice of buying one of the many android phones.

          Aside from that, I suppose platform restrictions don’t get classified as monopolistic behaviour.

          1. 2

            Is it really just a marketshare thing? The iOS lockdown seems a lot more insidious than Microsoft’s IE bundling, for example. If it was iOS that had a 80%+ marketshare would Apple be the ones targeted?

            1. 7

              Not necessarily - it seems there are specific criteria for what constitutes abuse of a dominant market position. The issue that caused the fine is that Google is abusing its position in search:

              Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement the dominance of its search engine. These practices have denied rivals the chance to innovate and compete on the merits. They have denied European consumers the benefits of effective competition in the important mobile sphere. This is illegal under EU antitrust rules.

              In particular, Google:

              • 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);
              • 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
              • 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”).
              1. 5

                If it was iOS that had a 80%+ marketshare would Apple be the ones targeted?

                Exactly.

          2. 7

            It looks like they haven’t even paid the previous fine and are still appealing: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/11/16291482/google-alphabet-eu-fine-antitrust-appeal

            I guess this one will go the same way? Even if their appeals are unsuccessful, these fines are probably not a big deal if they are able to drag these things out for years (ie cost per year wouldn’t be that high). By the time they have to pay and change their practices, they might have some other strategy in place.

            This reminds me a lot of Microsoft of the 2000s.

            1. 6

              I’m not sure if its a recent change but Google will have to pay the fine into a trust account if they want to appeal. either way they will have to pay now and if the win the appeal then they get it back ( without interest)


              posted from my phone

              1. 2

                That’s good to know. It might be a bit more convincing then.

                1. 2

                  That’s great, apparently they did learn from Microsoft!

                2. 3

                  There are five different investigations the EU is doing into Google. They are at different stages. The previous fine is being appealed now. https://imgur.com/6uLtQX5

                  This chart comes from a WSJ article from the day of the fine announcement.

                  1. 1

                    They may be fined for every day of not complying. EU is effective: if there’s will to do so.

                  2. 4

                    I was expecting this to knock the stock price down a bit but strangely that did not happen. Was it somehow already priced in?

                    1. 6

                      Or it’s simply because they still have a monopoly.

                    2. 3

                      It seems like the EU is defending the rights of other smart phone manufacturers more so than the rights of consumers. I’d like less bloatware, not more.

                      1. 2

                        The most interesting about this isn’t the fine. The EU can make Google stop the problematic business practices that Android OEMs have to ship Chrome as default browser.