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

[Thaldor]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm sorry you went to all that trouble to write out such a long post, but I am not going to read if your first sentence basically calls anyone dense because they have a different perspective on what constitutes anti trust.

Wasn't ment to be offensive, I sincerely apologise.

 

But what I'm trying to say, I think this is more about what kind of power Google has a s whole rather than is Google bundling their software with their OS. Just like with Microsoft media was fixated to that Microsoft was forced to offer other browsers with Windows, but there was actually more (IIRC) like Microsoft promised to sell Windows licenses to whoever was ready to buy and to be more coherent and open with their decision. Also Microsoft was forced to open every Office fileformat so competitors can make their software compatible with them.

 

Google has shown that it is the dictator of Android and through Open Handset Alliance it has killed the most prominent competitors that would have resources to develope Android OS and everything it needs to be marketable. Google also has the same power as Microsoft had, it can teminate companies just by refusing to give them licenses, sertificates or just access to their services.

 

What I think EU wants, is for Google to rollback to what they at first promised about Android, that everything Google does to develope Android would be usable by everyone or at least that Google promises it will tune down its dictatorship over Android and probably open Play Store for competitors (Amazon with their FireOS). Like said Google has moved a lot of features earlier build into Android to the Googles licensed AMS bundle and with that crippled the open Android to the point where it's almost useless.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

Wasn't ment to be offensive, I sincerely apologise.

 

But what I'm trying to say, I think this is more about what kind of power Google has a s whole rather than is Google bundling their software with their OS. Just like with Microsoft media was fixated to that Microsoft was forced to offer other browsers with Windows, but there was actually more (IIRC) like Microsoft promised to sell Windows licenses to whoever was ready to buy and to be more coherent and open with their decision. Also Microsoft was forced to open every Office fileformat so competitors can make their software compatible with them.

I believe MS willingly implemented the open standards because open source was gaining too much momentum for them to ignore. I don't think it was a legal requirement. 

Quote

Google has shown that it is the dictator of Android and through Open Handset Alliance it has killed the most prominent competitors that would have resources to develope Android OS and everything it needs to be marketable. Google also has the same power as Microsoft had, it can teminate companies just by refusing to give them licenses, sertificates or just access to their services.

And I don't think that is necessarily illegal,  not the best for consumers I'll grant because all the power is in one corner, however we do have choices and that is what should dictate the market when it is capable of doing so.  I.E when the time comes that you can only buy android because manufacturers are somehow unable to offer an alternative. EDIT, this sentence should read that laws forcing companies to open source should only occur when this time comes.

Quote

What I think EU wants, is for Google to rollback to what they at first promised about Android, that everything Google does to develope Android would be usable by everyone or at least that Google promises it will tune down its dictatorship over Android and probably open Play Store for competitors (Amazon with their FireOS). Like said Google has moved a lot of features earlier build into Android to the Googles licensed AMS bundle and with that crippled the open Android to the point where it's almost useless.

The problem here is google is allowed to have a dictatorship over android because google owns and develops android.   So the question remains should open android even be a thing?  As a consumer and advocate of opens source the answer is yes, as a capitalist and entrepreneur the answer is no.  Google didn't get where they are being nice to people or giving them stuff for free (contrary to popular belief all their services cost you something).

[Jito463]

On 7/20/2018 at 3:47 PM, Thaldor said:

Apparently after that Google transformed access to Play Store to fall under AMS and only "Google certified"-phones can access it ("certification" is quite an odd word for it, because what I have understood it's more like phones following Googles guidelines like "default homescreen must include Google Search and Google Chrome" than something hardware or software based compatibility)

On 7/20/2018 at 3:47 PM, Thaldor said:

(even if the consumers can sideload any Android app, only minority of them know how and majority will complain because you need to make your own app store which will be very poor compared to Play Store).

There's nothing stopping a number of phone manufacturers from joining together and making their own version of the Play store, allowing developers to upload there as well.  Then, any company who wants to make a forked version of Android could use that store instead of the Google one.  Capitalism wins.  Amazon basically already does that with their Kindle devices, if I recall correctly.

 

On 7/21/2018 at 4:59 AM, mark_cameron said:

Its hard for people in north America to understand this. Because they're being told by US politicians that this is a political attack, when its simply an correction against abusive market behaviour.

That was unnecessarily derogatory and demeaning.  Ignoring that most people here don't trust politicians as far as we can throw them anyway, you're essentially insinuating that we have to be told how and what to think.

[Commodus]

59 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

That was unnecessarily derogatory and demeaning.  Ignoring that most people here don't trust politicians as far as we can throw them anyway, you're essentially insinuating that we have to be told how and what to think.

Mind you, I've seen Americans who oppose net neutrality by regurgitating the talking points of the very telecoms bribing politicians into opposing regulation, so that's not as far-fetched as you might think.  There are plenty of independent-minded Americans, but there are also plenty who will gladly let companies run roughshod over them for various reasons (knee-jerk resistance to any regulation, overzealous devotion to a particular company, and so on).  The EU, as heavy-handed as it can sometimes be, reminds people that companies are here to serve us, not the other way around.

[Stefan Payne]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

That was unnecessarily derogatory and demeaning.  Ignoring that most people here don't trust politicians as far as we can throw them anyway, you're essentially insinuating that we have to be told how and what to think.

What alternative do you have against multi national, multi Millard Dollar Companys??

 

As said, the Gouvernment should only set the rules and enforce them. And, when in doubt, side with the consumer.

[Jito463]

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

Mind you, I've seen Americans who oppose net neutrality by regurgitating the talking points of the very telecoms bribing politicians into opposing regulation, so that's not as far-fetched as you might think.

You've also accused me of doing that, just for speaking my own mind.  Perhaps your own preconceptions are clouding your judgment.

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

What alternative do you have against multi national, multi Millard Dollar Companys??

 

As said, the Gouvernment should only set the rules and enforce them. And, when in doubt, side with the consumer.

What does any of that have to do with my comment?

[mark_cameron]

On 7/21/2018 at 5:24 AM, mr moose said:

I'm sorry you went to all that trouble to write out such a long post, but I am not going to read if your first sentence basically calls anyone dense because they have a different perspective on what constitutes anti trust. 

 

I understand all that, I still disagree that it is anti trust, remember it was only just over a decade ago when nearly all phone manufactures had their own OS.  With a few exceptions like windows and some very new android gear.  Today there is nothing stopping a phone manufacturer from writing their own OS.  I get the barrier to entry can be high, but if phone companies wish to use googles OS then they should abide googles licensing terms. It should not be illegal to bundle your own software on your own OS.

It is illegal if you pay companies to bundle your software and abuse your dominant market position.

 

On 7/21/2018 at 7:31 AM, Jito463 said:

That was unnecessarily derogatory and demeaning.  Ignoring that most people here don't trust politicians as far as we can throw them anyway, you're essentially insinuating that we have to be told how and what to think.

Trump was tweeting only yesterday that this fine was some sort of attack on America by the EU.

 

When it was about a company abusing it's market position. Hurting consumers in the EU.

[Commodus]

57 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You've also accused me of doing that, just for speaking my own mind.  Perhaps your own preconceptions are clouding your judgment.

Doesn't it concern you at least a bit that you share the same point of view as telecoms perpetrating bribery, regulatory capture, and other measures to corrupt politics?  If you have to do fundamentally evil things to get your way, maybe it's not the right idea.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, mark_cameron said:

It is illegal if you pay companies to bundle your software and abuse your dominant market position.

Depends on the size of your market position and why you are paying them to bundle.  It is evident why google want their software bundled, what is not evident is why the EU Considers that illegal. 

[mark_cameron]

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

Depends on the size of your market position and why you are paying them to bundle.  It is evident why google want their software bundled, what is not evident is why the EU Considers that illegal. 

You don't even need to have market dominance to fall foul of "concerted practices"

Google do which them mean they're even more in the spotlight.

It's illegal as Google have forced suppliers/users to bundle Chrome

Which stops other browser providers competing. It also potentially stops other OS providers competing too. That's illegal.

 

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

Depends on the size of your market position and why you are paying them to bundle.  It is evident why google want their software bundled, what is not evident is why the EU Considers that illegal. 

Oh and another thing. In Europe it's illegal to use a restrictive concerted practice in one market (mobile OS/browser) to restrict competition in another market (search engines)

 

It isn't in the US.

 

It's also easier in Europe to get convictions. As you don't need to prove damage to consumers per se by reduced competition. Merely that it is impacting other competing companies.

 

Politicians in Europe also don't look the other way. The FTC did in the USA concerning GOOGLE in 2013 under political pressure in the US.

[mr moose]

41 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

You don't even need to have market dominance to fall foul of "concerted practices"

 

Google do which them mean they're even more in the spotlight.

 

It's illegal as Google have forced suppliers/users to bundle Chrome

 

Which stops other browser providers competing. It also potentially stops other OS providers competing too. That's illegal.

And that's what I am shouldn't be illegal, it does not stop other browser from competing  unless it prevents browser from being installed.
 

28 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

Oh and another thing. In Europe it's illegal to use a restrictive concerted practice in one market (mobile OS/browser) to restrict competition in another market (search engines)

 

It isn't in the US.

 

It's also easier in Europe to get convictions. As you don't need to prove damage to consumers per se by reduced competition. Merely that it is impacting other competing companies.

 

Politicians in Europe also don't look the other way. The FTC did in the USA concerning GOOGLE in 2013 under political pressure in the US.

I don't see how this is restrictive practice in another market.   Unless google prevent the end user from downloading apps how is it restrictive? It's just like their search engine, there are plenty of alternatives and using google is not compulsory so why should it matter what ads they place.  So long as users are informed how the search engine prioritizes results beyond that is just meddling. 

[MadDuke]

35 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And that's what I am shouldn't be illegal, it does not stop other browser from competing  unless it prevents browser from being installed.
 

I don't see how this is restrictive practice in another market.   Unless google prevent the end user from downloading apps how is it restrictive? It's just like their search engine, there are plenty of alternatives and using google is not compulsory so why should it matter what ads they place.  So long as users are informed how the search engine prioritizes results beyond that is just meddling. 

Hi.

I guess you are probably younger than me.  I remember the 90s. I've been on the internet since I was an 8 year old kid in 1995. And I rememember Netscape Navigator (internet browser).  Do you know what happened to it?   It got destroyed THE MINUTE Microsoft released Windows operating system with an included Internet Explorer in it.

 

This is what happened with Netscape Navigator usage.

Why? You could still install it in Windows?

Install? What is that?

Internet? That is that icon I click.

And in these two sentences I have portrayed the 2 most common reaction from people. Second one is still true in 2018. Or at least was while I was listening to phone calls between a bank I worked for in 2016. towards the corporate banking support department.

 

Do you know why there are so many Internet Explorer + Edge users there? 

 

I can guarantee you it's not because "They like the browsing experience".   Microsoft because of that practice still holds after Chrome as much market share as all others combined and then some.

 

 

 

[Jito463]

5 hours ago, mark_cameron said:

Trump was tweeting only yesterday that this fine was some sort of attack on America by the EU.

Except that doesn't mean people are waiting to be told what to think by a politician, which you heavily implied in your post.

5 hours ago, Commodus said:

Doesn't it concern you at least a bit that you share the same point of view as telecoms perpetrating bribery, regulatory capture, and other measures to corrupt politics?  If you have to do fundamentally evil things to get your way, maybe it's not the right idea.

I'm not going to rehash a previous conversation, but the long and short of it is that I wasn't.  I was simply stating that I agreed with the decision to repeal NN (for myriad reasons), which you attributed to me as merely parroting Ajit Pai's comments.  Again, your own preconceptions seem to be guiding your responses, rather than what the other person is actually saying.

[MadDuke]

And another good article from Ars:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/

 

It's great because it's and old one.  Why is that great? Because you can actually see the results from the things written in here. 

[avg123]

Maybe the EU should also make policies to make manufacturers to support mobile phones with at least 3 years of updates while they are at it. Most budgest phones just get 1 year of updates .

[Spotty]

1 minute ago, Nicholatian said:

The distinction is simple, and quite obvious: market share. Apple does not have the market share in embedded that Android does, and they do not have the market share in personal computing that Windows does.

I don't accept that as a valid distinction.
Google only gained that market share within the last decade. What you're suggesting is that it would be okay for a company to bundle their software with their OS if they didn't have majority market share, but you're completely ignoring what would happen to that company if they do end up earning a higher market share.

You can't say "It's okay for Apple to do it because they have only 30% market share", because if Apple continues doing it then who knows, maybe in 2 or 3 years time Apple/iOS becomes the dominant phone/OS. You can't then turn around and say "Oh, woops. We only allowed you to operate the way you did because we thought you weren't successful in the marketplace. Now that you are successful, everything you've done is illegal and here's a 5 billion euro fine." Considering that 10 years ago Googles/Androids marketshare in the phone industry was 0%, who knows what the market will be like in another 10 years time.

 

You can't have an industry with one set of laws that one company must follow and a completely different set of laws that another company must follow. That is anti-competitive. If "Bundling a web browser with an OS" is anti-competitive, then it should apply to all companies in the market place.

 

 

A lot of the concern was around the way Google provided Android OS to other 3rd party manufacturers to use in their phones - A practice that Apple does not allow with iOS. This does provide a distinction between the two companies.

Google allowed the other companies to use the Android OS for free, and allowed manufacturers to modify the OS, however with restrictions. Google would only provide the device access to the Google Play store (app store), a service provided by Google, as long as the device/OS trying to access that service met Google's requirements, including that it had the chrome browser installed.

In contrast, Apple has full control over its iOS and its phones, and there are no 3rd party manufacturers who could make an authorised iOS device that doesn't contain the Safari web browser, therefore a situation has never arisen where Apple has needed to deny access to certain services if a 3rd party manufacturer doesn't comply with Apple's terms. However, in the end Apple still forces all iOS phones to have Safari web browser installed and all iPhones come with it preinstalled, and it is unable to be removed/uninstalled (same as Chrome on Android).

If requiring a device running your OS to have your web browser installed is anti-competitive, then both Apple and Google are doing it. The only difference between the two is Apple has complete control over iOS (and therefore doesn't need to set rules for other manufacturers to follow) while Google permits other phone manufacturers to use it (providing the companies abide by Googles terms).

Maybe when you start up an Android or iOS device for the first time, one of the set up questions it asks should be "Choose your default web browser" with a picture of the respective Chrome/Safari icon, and then next to it an icon that opens the respective App stores to browse for a third party browser.

If this is something that the EU wants to regulate through laws, then the law needs to apply to all [phone] OS developers. You can't apply such limitation on just one of the companies. If it applies to one, then it needs to apply to all.

[mr moose]

16 hours ago, MadDuke said:

Hi.

I guess you are probably younger than me.  I remember the 90s. I've been on the internet since I was an 8 year old kid in 1995. And I rememember Netscape Navigator (internet browser).  Do you know what happened to it?   It got destroyed THE MINUTE Microsoft released Windows operating system with an included Internet Explorer in it.

 

 

This is what happened with Netscape Navigator usage.

Why? You could still install it in Windows?

Install? What is that?

Internet? That is that icon I click.

And in these two sentences I have portrayed the 2 most common reaction from people. Second one is still true in 2018. Or at least was while I was listening to phone calls between a bank I worked for in 2016. towards the corporate banking support department.

 

Do you know why there are so many Internet Explorer + Edge users there? 

 

I can guarantee you it's not because "They like the browsing experience".   Microsoft because of that practice still holds after Chrome as much market share as all others combined and then some.

I'm 42, I was selling internet when you were 8 years old.    In fact I was building, selling and repairing PC's before you even knew what TCP/IP was.  Don't assume you know everything because have an opinion.

 

For your information, netscape was bought out by AOL and the core people behind it essential birthed Firefox from it's ashes.

[mark_cameron]

4 hours ago, Spotty said:

If this is something that the EU wants to regulate through laws, then the law needs to apply to all [phone] OS developers. You can't apply such limitation on just one of the companies. If it applies to one, then it needs to apply to all.

It will apply to all. The competition regulators will examine different companies on merit.

 

Example. Apple is already under investigation in 2018. On multiple issues.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/24/apple-eu-investigation-shazam-takeover-data-regulators-music-recognition

 

Quote

Apple's Shazam takeover investigated by EU competition regulators

 

EC concerned £300m deal with music-recognition app could give Apple data on users and rival streaming services to aid poaching

 

The EU has launched a formal investigation into Apple’s proposed acquisition of UK music-recognition app Shazam.

 

The European commission announced its in-depth investigation into the deal over concerns that it would harm consumer choice and give Apple an unfair advantage through access to user data, which could aid in poaching customers from rivals.

Shazam has been downloaded 1bn times and is used 20m times a day. It is the world’s leading music recognition system, able to listen to and identify tracks via a smartphone and then link those tracks to multiple music subscription services, which means it could therefore hold commercially sensitive data on Apple’s competitors and their consumers.

 

Noting that Apple Music has become the second-largest music streaming service in Europe, the EC said: “Access to such data could allow Apple to directly target its competitors’ customers and encourage them to switch to Apple Music. As a result, competing music streaming services could be put at a competitive disadvantage.”

 

[mark_cameron]

I make a prediction.

 

Expect the EU commission to home in at some point on YouTube also owned by Google.

 

It can also be used to manipulate markets and ad revenues.

 

This all dates back to before 2011 and is from Microsoft making complaints to the EU that it could not properly compete with Google due to their practices.

 

One cannot explain the relative explosive growth and declines in this sector other than: 1. tax avoidance/evasion (see Ireland state aid breaches) and 2. Anti competitive practices from US based companies doing business in Europe.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-google/microsoft-files-eu-competition-complaint-vs-google-idUSTRE72U1IN20110331

 

Quote

Microsoft files EU competition complaint vs Google

 

The complaint also underscores the erosion of Microsoft’s near-monopoly of the personal computer market as Apple Inc has outgrown it in revenue. Google controls over 90 percent of the Internet search advertising market in Europe, well ahead of Microsoft’s Bing. And Web browsers such as Firefox and Google’s Chrome have eaten away at the market lead by Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.

In its complaint on Thursday, Microsoft claims Google engages in a “pattern of actions” that unfairly impede competition.

 

Quote

The complaint charges that Google hurts competition by “walling off” content on its YouTube site, so other search engines cannot display accurate results; making it hard for Microsoft’s mobile phone software to show videos from YouTube; blocking access to content owned by book publishers; not letting advertisers use their own data about customers garnered from Google on other sites; blocking websites from using competing “search boxes”; and making it expensive for potential competitors to Google to advertise online.

 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

I make a prediction.

 

Expect the EU commission to home in at some point on YouTube also owned by Google.

 

It can also be used to manipulate markets and ad revenues.

 

This all dates back to before 2011 and is from Microsoft making complaints to the EU that it could not properly compete with Google due to their practices.

 

One cannot explain the relative explosive growth and declines in this sector other than: 1. tax avoidance and 2. Anti competitive practices from US based companies doing business in Europe.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-google/microsoft-files-eu-competition-complaint-vs-google-idUSTRE72U1IN20110331

 

 

 

What I read in all that,  big company uses legal means to attack competition.  MS failed in the search engine department so plan B is lodge a complaint with any court that will listen.

[mark_cameron]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What I read in all that,  big company uses legal means to attack competition.  MS failed in the search engine department so plan B is lodge a complaint with any court that will listen.

Remember. In Europe whilst monopolies are not themselves illegal - if you have a monopoly your are held at a different legal standard to a duopoly or when a minor market share.

 

Monopolies are frowned on.

 

I use this Amazon illustration of how Google can impede competition using it's software to damage potential competitors.

 

In this case. Amazon.

 

Google yanking YouTube off the Amazon device in my view is clear interference in a competitors product.

 

This looks to me illegal. Amazon customers being impacted. When it is Amazon's not Google's responsibility for user experience!

 

https://www.techradar.com/news/google-pulls-youtube-from-amazon-echo-show-again-as-well-as-from-fire-tv

Quote

Google pulls YouTube from Amazon Echo Show again, as well as from Fire TV [Update]

 

Mere days after the little tussle between Google and Amazon seemed to be clearing up, the two companies are apparently at it once again.

Two weeks ago Google allowed YouTube to return to the Amazon Echo Show after pulling the service in September, when the company cited a "broken user experience" compared to what you find online and in Google-made apps.

 

Amazon's solution was largely a case of having the Show display YouTube as if it were on a desktop browser, which was far from ideal, but it seemed to make everyone happy until a better solution could be developed. 

 

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

Remember. In Europe whilst monopolies are not themselves illegal - if you have a monopoly your are held at a different legal standard to a duopoly or when a minor market share.

 

Monopolies are frowned on.

 

I use this Amazon illustration of how Google can impede competition using it's software to damage potential competitors.

 

In this case. Amazon.

 

Google yanking YouTube off the Amazon device in my view is clear interference in a competitors product.

 

This looks to me illegal. Amazon customers being impacted. When it is Amazon's not Google's responsibility for user experience!

 

https://www.techradar.com/news/google-pulls-youtube-from-amazon-echo-show-again-as-well-as-from-fire-tv

 

I think there is probably a lot more to it than that.  Remember that youtube is a private service offered by google.  It is under no obligation to allow other companies to use it in their products, remember having access to it through an internet browser or you tube app is different to a company incorporating it into their product.  MS had the same issues with youtube on WP, google at one stage refused to allow MS to have their own youtube app on the phone. You could access it via the browser but  not the MS made app.

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

MS had the same issues with youtube on WP, google at one stage refused to allow MS to have their own youtube app on the phone. You could access it via the browser but  not the MS made app.

Worth mentioning that the reason why they weren't allowed to have their own app.

They were allowed to at first, but the official Microsoft app blocked ads and allowed users to download videos. Since it went against the ToS, they were essentially banned from developing youtube apps. Other developers for WP were allowed to however.

[mark_cameron]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I think there is probably a lot more to it than that.  Remember that youtube is a private service offered by google.  It is under no obligation to allow other companies to use it in their products, remember having access to it through an internet browser or you tube app is different to a company incorporating it into their product.  MS had the same issues with youtube on WP, google at one stage refused to allow MS to have their own youtube app on the phone. You could access it via the browser but  not the MS made app.

Companies like Amazon - ARE obliged to use YouTube when it accounts for > 70% of the market place.

 

Who can compete when customers want their devices to be able to access YouTube. Which Amazon provided, for then Google to then withdraw, in an effort to damage a new competing device to its own home devices.

 

Its a perfect illustration of the practices that Google employs against competitors.

 

Contrary to European law. Which is designed to protect European consumers.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, mark_cameron said:

Companies like Amazon - ARE obliged to use YouTube when it accounts for > 70% of the market place.

 

Who can compete when customers want their devices to be able to access YouTube. Which Amazon provided, for then Google to then withdraw, in an effort to damage a new competing device to its own home devices.

 

Its a perfect illustration of the practices that Google employs against competitors.

 

Contrary to European law. Which is designed to protect European consumers.

Again, there is a difference between blocking Amazons customers from youtube and blocking a specific use of youtube by amazon.  I'd like to see where youtube was outright banned as opposed to just blocked in certain apps like the MS one was.

 

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Worth mentioning that the reason why they weren't allowed to have their own app.

They were allowed to at first, but the official Microsoft app blocked ads and allowed users to download videos. Since it went against the ToS, they were essentially banned from developing youtube apps. Other developers for WP were allowed to however.

whatever the driving factor was, the point is youtube only blocked MS's specific in house app and not a blanket ban for all MS customers.