[Update] Google to be fined 5 billion dollars by the EU for breaching Antitrust laws

[Peskanova]

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The consumer doesn't have to buy it. Third parties don't have to use it. Above all, these are luxury items, not necessities, and should be treated as such.

Same as people defending against bitcoin regulations, and china usa eu all are baning because consumers(people) are risking his houses all his money to buy bitcoins , They dont have to buy but they do and they broke.... See how its regulated by your country mine and 90% of the world. Just dont have double moral please....

You just dont understand that if you sell 1 product on a country you need to take that country's laws, simple, see how companies bend they standards to publish on china all day long. What it bothers me is that US people Swings freedom sword wrongly to battle against people that are helping US customers more than themselves.

[Drak3]

Just now, Peskanova said:

Same as people defending against bitcoin regulations, and china usa eu all are baning because consumers(people) are risking his houses all his money to buy bitcoins , They dont have to buy but they do and they broke.... See how its regulated by your country mine and 90% of the world. Just dont have double moral please....

It's not the same thing. I don't defend regulating bitcoin as a product either, unless it's to be used as an acceptable currency in the US. Beyond that, let idiots ruin their lives chasing it.

[asus killer]

47 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That's a load of bullshit. There is no company loving rhetoric in the US. The media spews on about how large companies are devil incarnate, how they owe the US citizens everything. Basically the socialist bullshit that is fucking the US over.

 

that's the country where the head of the environmental protection agency was the lawyer for the largest coal operator and hates the environment right. The head of education lobbied for private education. The guy heading the FCC worked for Verizon and is dismantling consumer protection. So yep bullshit for sure. No problem at all there. Nothing to see move along.

Let's not go politic, agree to insanely disagree.

[Peskanova]

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It's not the same thing. I don't defend regulating bitcoin as a product either, unless it's to be used as an acceptable currency in the US. Beyond that, let idiots ruin their lives chasing it.

Well its useless to argue like that , you need to take a leson on history or humanism... If we dont regulate products big companies wont do , Have you heard about pharmaceutical industry?,to make profit bayer send drug with HIV because they doesnt care about health , only profit , goverment and anything that we make to regulate are there to do so... If I pay someone to make laws and sue people who is doing bad market practices glad for they to make his work?.

GUESS IF IS JUST AFRICA OR SOUTH AMERICA AND THEY DOESNT HAVE OUR LAWS ITS OK?????
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/23/aids.suzannegoldenberg -> This is your freedom and not regulated market , well if they die they are just bad consumers that doesnt inform about that product...(its a bit extreme but you got the meaning)

EDIT : Im pro google and I think all here are, and in my country (spain) more than 90% of people use google as a search engine but if a company who owns 90% of my market uses bad tactics to push that 10% to his side that's mean and needs to be regulated and if it's regulated like here sued and fined. And glad we do as nowadays sentences travels around the world (like gpdr) and make market just a little more fair. And it's not country related if It was from USA to an EU company glad too , because we allways need someone to stand between the strong and the weak just to make the game fair for the weak.

[Fasterthannothing]

O for goodness sake this is ridiculous if your agreeing with the EUs ruling your insane. You do realize that this means that Google can't install anything on phones anymore (a pain in the but for consumers) and also Apple and Microsoft does the same thing and doesn't get thrown into this give me a break. The left have brainwashed some of you people in the believing that markets can't regulate themselves. It might not be instant but if a company is too big someone will always make something to challenge them because monopolies actually create markets due to consumer unhappiness. Also just because a company is big doesn't mean it's bad. 

[asus killer]

42 minutes ago, Shorty88jr said:

The left have brainwashed some of you people in the believing that markets can't regulate themselves. It might not be instant but if a company is too big someone will always make something to challenge them because monopolies actually create markets due to consumer unhappiness. 

the "someone will do something" is probably one of the best argument i have ever seen in a discussion.

"monopolies create markets" is just thinking so outside of the box that you can't even see the box anymore.

[Donut417]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

I'm afraid with the economy being global now they can to a degree.  Whether we like it or not, the consequences of bad decisions in one country spill over into the rest.

The US still is the largest buyer of goods. Its called an embargo. The US can strangle the EU's economy. 

[asus killer]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

The US still is the largest buyer of goods. Its called an embargo. The US can strangle the EU's economy. 

the EU has a trade surplus, the US has a enormous trade deficit paid by with enormous amounts of debt.

That's like saying the most credit dependent and in debt person (that spends more than in earns and purchases more than it can afford) on your street is actually the one with all the power. It of course makes absolutely no sense.

[Fasterthannothing]

4 hours ago, asus killer said:

the "someone will do something" is probably one of the best argument i have ever seen in a discussion.

"monopolies create markets" is just thinking so outside of the box that you can't even see the box anymore.

It's not that crazy of an idea I've seen a monopoly create a market first hand. I live in a small rural town with horrible internet the fastest internet we had before about a year and a half ago was slow 15Mbps by one company and no one else wanted to deal with bringing internet to us. But because the town was so unhappy with the internet service they actually got a company to provide fast internet through a wireless tower that was made for rural areas and the only thing they needed was one fiber cable run which the town could afford since we wouldn't have to run new cables to everyone. Then once that company came in the company servicing us already dropped prices and increased speeds. There was no lawsuit needed only people to vote to allow funding for the cable and the monopoly was broken. So when a monopoly has a strong hold on a part of the market someone will step up to disband that monopoly without the need for a lawsuit because the market can correct itself. No one had to fine or get rid of the company we had we just had to find a specialized company that would provide us service.

[asus killer]

41 minutes ago, Shorty88jr said:

It's not that crazy of an idea I've seen a monopoly create a market first hand. I live in a small rural town with horrible internet the fastest internet we had before about a year and a half ago was slow 15Mbps by one company and no one else wanted to deal with bringing internet to us. But because the town was so unhappy with the internet service they actually got a company to provide fast internet through a wireless tower that was made for rural areas and the only thing they needed was one fiber cable run which the town could afford since we wouldn't have to run new cables to everyone. Then once that company came in the company servicing us already dropped prices and increased speeds. There was no lawsuit needed only people to vote to allow funding for the cable and the monopoly was broken. So when a monopoly has a strong hold on a part of the market someone will step up to disband that monopoly without the need for a lawsuit because the market can correct itself. No one had to fine or get rid of the company we had we just had to find a specialized company that would provide us service.

i think you miss the all point. The EU wants not to end the monopoly but for others to have conditions to do so and for other companies to be able to work with it.

In that example it is not a desirable market, that company does not have the power and probably also the interest to invest in defending it by all means like google does.

[Thaldor]

4 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i think you miss the all point. The EU wants not to end the monopoly but for others to have conditions to do so and for other companies to be able to work with it.

In that example it is not a desirable market, that company does not have the power and probably also the interest to invest in defending it by all means like google does.

I would put it more like (so that everybody understands):

 

The EU do not want to take away the Freedom of Google. They want to make sure that Google does not take away the Freedom of others.

 

[I would attach a photo of Trump here so everyone would read that in his voice, but I want to spare my PC from searching photos of him ]

[Donut417]

4 hours ago, asus killer said:

the EU has a trade surplus, the US has a enormous trade deficit paid by with enormous amounts of debt.

That's like saying the most credit dependent and in debt person (that spends more than in earns and purchases more than it can afford) on your street is actually the one with all the power. It of course makes absolutely no sense.

We have a trade deficit because we import a large chunk of shit. The US is the largest market. Meaing if you can sell in the US you are at a serious disadvantage. We buy more shit then even China. While some EU countries may be fine, I'm sure there are those who would be hurt. It's all about putting pressure on the weakest link. 

[Drak3]

47 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

The EU do not want to take away the Freedom of Google. They want to make sure that Google does not take away the Freedom of others.

No other company has a right to ship Google's services and products. Google has every right to have these (fair) requirements in place to ship devices using their services.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, Shorty88jr said:

O for goodness sake this is ridiculous if your agreeing with the EUs ruling your insane. You do realize that this means that Google can't install anything on phones anymore (a pain in the but for consumers) and also Apple and Microsoft does the same thing and doesn't get thrown into this give me a break. The left have brainwashed some of you people in the believing that markets can't regulate themselves. It might not be instant but if a company is too big someone will always make something to challenge them because monopolies actually create markets due to consumer unhappiness. Also just because a company is big doesn't mean it's bad. 

I recommend you actually read the ruling rather than just jump to conclusion.

This does not in any way shape or for limit what is preinstalled on phones.

 

What the ruling states is that Google can't:

1) Force manufacturers to include Google Search and Chrome if they want to also include the store. Manufacturers must be free to include the store without also including the browser or search app.

 

2) Google are no longer allowed to pay phone manufacturers to not install competing apps. For example Google would pay phone makers to not include Bing on their devices.

 

3) Google is no longer allowed to do blanket bans on all phones from a manufacturer, if they release even a single phone that is not Google-approved. As it was up until now, if Samsung released a phone without Chrome pre-installed, Google would do a blanket ban and not allow any Google apps (including things like the store) on ANY Samsung phones. The Galaxy J 2 doesn't have Chrome installed? Then the Galaxy S9 can't have the store!

 

 

The rest of your comment is too politically charged for me to comment on, but I strongly disagree with it as well.

[vanished]

27 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

*snip*

That is very concise and clear.  If the OP contained that this thread might have gone differently - more of people reacting to the news and less of them guessing what it actually was about.

 

These all seem like perfectly reasonable things to be fined over and it would be good to see them end.

[ItsMitch]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

That is very concise and clear.  If the OP contained that this thread might have gone differently - more of people reacting to the news and less of them guessing what it actually was about.

 

Maybe if half the thread wasn't rammed with political bullshit about trump and his fuckery wall then I'd of actually bothered to sort it out. But hey, my DMs are open for recommendations on thread changes  

[Papu]

i live in european union...but i just don't understand this at all...from my point of view Android belongs to google...they should have total control over what's in it and what's not...if they want to force a photo of someones hairy ass on the background then that should be their right.   although i dont think this is the worse decision EU has made but im still against it...im kinda hoping this whole house of cards would just go down because EU has only brought more corruption and less independence...it might work better for larger countries but us here in the puny league it's not that great

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, Papu said:

i live in european union...but i just don't understand this at all...from my point of view Android belongs to google...they should have total control over what's in it and what's not...if they want to force a photo of someones hairy ass on the background then that should be their right.   although i dont think this is the worse decision EU has made but im still against it...im kinda hoping this whole house of cards would just go down because EU has only brought more corruption and less independence...it might work better for larger countries but us here in the puny league it's not that great

Bunch of nonsense. The EU gives smaller countries more power than they would otherwise have.

[mark_cameron]

21 hours ago, Rattenmann said:

Yeah, because paying for an OS will make more competition show up and existing competition on the edge of profitability will surely not go down under by suddenly facing an added cost factor. And consumers will surely not have to pay more to offset all of that.

 

I will join the "i give up" and "/ignore" crowd from here on out.

You clearly only look at laws and ignore if they actually fit the case or make any sense whatsoever. Good luck with that. 

You do that. Because your blaitantly not seeing the impact of related markets like search engines and advertising from this.

[asus killer]

8 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Bunch of nonsense. The EU gives smaller countries more power than they would otherwise have.

this almost mimics the discussion in the US between the rights of the states and the federal government. The power of the state of Mississippi i guess 

 

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

We have a trade deficit because we import a large chunk of shit. The US is the largest market. Meaing if you can sell in the US you are at a serious disadvantage. We buy more shit then even China. While some EU countries may be fine, I'm sure there are those who would be hurt. It's all about putting pressure on the weakest link. 

i have no numbers to contradict you. You most certainly are not a bigger market then China or even the EU, just look at population numbers.

You import a lot but that's not the fault of the ones selling is that you are either to lazy to make those things your selfs or you are just like those people that can't stop to order from Amazon on a credit card.

If you want to not have a trade deficit with every one don't buy so much form other countries.

Thinking that is power is your choice. It's non sense all the same.

 

Let's keep it here, this is politics and nothing to do with the topic

[mark_cameron]

11 hours ago, Drak3 said:

By whose metric.

Everything is unfair. The EU's case in itself is unfair.

Google isn't taking advantage of unfair law. They're maintaining that THEIR product is THEIR product, and it should be offered on top of third party products only when offered exactly as THEIR product.

 

The consumer doesn't have to buy it. Third parties don't have to use it. Above all, these are luxury items, not necessities, and should be treated as such.

Thays not how markets work.

 

That's not how European law works. 

[Fasterthannothing]

59 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I recommend you actually read the ruling rather than just jump to conclusion.

This does not in any way shape or for limit what is preinstalled on phones.

 

What the ruling states is that Google can't:

1) Force manufacturers to include Google Search and Chrome if they want to also include the store. Manufacturers must be free to include the store without also including the browser or search app.

 

2) Google are no longer allowed to pay phone manufacturers to not install competing apps. For example Google would pay phone makers to not include Bing on their devices.

 

3) Google is no longer allowed to do blanket bans on all phones from a manufacturer, if they release even a single phone that is not Google-approved. As it was up until now, if Samsung released a phone without Chrome pre-installed, Google would do a blanket ban and not allow any Google apps (including things like the store) on ANY Samsung phones. The Galaxy J 2 doesn't have Chrome installed? Then the Galaxy S9 can't have the store!

 

 

The rest of your comment is too politically charged for me to comment on, but I strongly disagree with it as well.

Points one and two are still ridiculous its Google's OS. If they require you to include chrome to use their own software so be it. I really don't understand that thinking if I made a software bundle I wouldn't want to allow others to pick and choose what to use no I would make it so they had to use the whole thing or nothing for a multitude of reasons. The first reason is that if someone has the ability to buy just one of the pieces of software in the bundle and they try and use another program in conjunction with it but that program is crappy or not compatible and ruins my product I'm not going to be happy. Providing tech support will be a nightmare and the customer will be upset. Second I would have tailored each piece of software in the bundle to increase the functionality or value of the other pieces of software in the bundle. Point 3 is wrong because China doesn't allow Google apps on phones sold in China but that same phone or other phones from that company sold outside of China use Google apps. So companies in China sell both phones with Google and without and Google doesn't ban the company from using Android or the Appstore. 

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, asus killer said:

this almost mimics the discussion in the US between the rights of the states and the federal government. The power of the state of Mississippi i guess 

 

i have no numbers to contradict you. You most certainly are not a bigger market then China or even the EU, just look at population numbers.

You import a lot but that's not the fault of the ones selling is that you are either to lazy to make those things your selfs or you are just like those people that can't stop to order from Amazon on a credit card.

If you want to not have a trade deficit with every one don't buy so much form other countries.

Thinking that is power is your choice. It's non sense all the same.

 

Let's keep it here, this is politics and nothing to do with the topic

Its not about the population. The US is one of the richest countries in the world. We buy more than other places. China has a lot of poor people. Not enough high paying jobs to go around. Also, the US is like 3rd most populated country in the world. Its all about purchasing power, most US citizens even those who are not necessarily in the best place financially, can afford to buy slightly more than the bare essentials. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_markets, according to this the US is the largest market, making the EU the second.