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

[vanished]

1 minute ago, SC2Mitch said:

The market opened right as the ruling was issued. Like 10 minutes after it opened. 

Oh.  Well that's not what that picture looks like but ok.  Regardless, it might take a day or 3 for everyone to take notice.  The people who watch it closely will do what they want to (if anything) almost right away, or at least within the first day, and then others will trail them for a while.

[79wjd]

 

45 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Ironically, Apple has enough market mind share right now, that if they permitted other companies to build phones with iOS on it, they could sell a ton of them.  However, they won't because: Apple.  The primary reason MS became so dominant in the industry is because Gates understood the intrinsic value of licensing the software and leaving the hardware for others.  Apple never learned that lesson (or rather, they chose to ignore it).

Apple used to license their software (to Sony), and iirc it was a complete shitshow.

 

Licensing software works when everyone is forced to use the platform regardless of the complete mess that it often ends up being. Apple doesn't have that kind of market position.

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Ironically, Apple has enough market mind share right now, that if they permitted other companies to build phones with iOS on it, they could sell a ton of them.  However, they won't because: Apple.  The primary reason MS became so dominant in the industry is because Gates understood the intrinsic value of licensing the software and leaving the hardware for others.  Apple never learned that lesson (or rather, they chose to ignore it).

It’s more quality control. People prefer an os tailored to the hardware, rather than hardware tailored to the os.

 

even in early devices you can see the experience is very smooth. Same can’t be said for Androids of the earlier generation. I don’t think TouchWiz needs bringing up

[Commodus]

19 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Ironically, Apple has enough market mind share right now, that if they permitted other companies to build phones with iOS on it, they could sell a ton of them.  However, they won't because: Apple.  The primary reason MS became so dominant in the industry is because Gates understood the intrinsic value of licensing the software and leaving the hardware for others.  Apple never learned that lesson (or rather, they chose to ignore it).

It's that Apple chose to ignore it.  A lot of people like to think that Apple wants to be Microsoft, but the truth is that it just wants to be profitable and successful with its own business model, however many customers that actually brings.

 

And the irony of the "oh, they could have been Microsoft" angle is... well, would they really, knowing where Microsoft is now?  Its obsession with PC market share left it blind to the rise of the modern smartphone, the Windows PC market grew stagnant and the company had to pivot to cloud services to make its business sustainable in the long run. And outside of Surface, it lost a whole lot of its cachet.

 

Apple's OS-exclusive strategy does cost it a lot of potential market share, but you know what it also does?  It keeps the company on an even keel and independent of other companies' fortunes.  Microsoft's problem for much of Ballmer's tenure was that it was chained to the fate of its PC vendors, and they were more interested in that race-to-the-bottom pursuit of market share over delivering an experience that fostered loyalty to Windows.

[Jito463]

On 7/18/2018 at 7:39 PM, RorzNZ said:

It’s more quality control.

And yet, how many iOS issues have we seen posted in the past 6 months or more?  Quality control only works as an argument when you adequately control the quality.  The only real advantage to Apple's implementation (in my opinion, obviously) is that they can move quicker with updates since they control both the hardware and the software, and even that is being remedied on the Android side now.

On 7/18/2018 at 7:39 PM, RorzNZ said:

I don’t think TouchWiz needs bringing up

I thought TouchWiz was Samsung only?

On 7/18/2018 at 7:31 PM, djdwosk97 said:

Apple used to license their software (to Sony)

I don't recall that, but there were authorized Mac clones in the mid 90's, that were often faster and cheaper than anything Apple could put out.  So much so, that Steve Jobs used a loophole in the licensing clause to basically shut them all out and close the door on them.

 

http://lowendmac.com/musings/mm07/0830.html

 

On 7/18/2018 at 8:02 PM, Commodus said:

And the irony of the "oh, they could have been Microsoft" angle is... well, would they really, knowing where Microsoft is now?

Except the irony of that statement is, without MS intervention there likely wouldn't be an Apple today.

[Commodus]

8 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Except the irony of that statement is, without MS intervention there likely wouldn't be an Apple today.

Oh, I know!  I'm sure Gates kicks himself every day, even though he knew Microsoft needed Apple around to avoid some pretty serious antitrust action.  But I don't think most people would have predicted that Jobs would not only bring Apple back from the brink, but change the tech industry landscape on a fundamental level.  Most companies that throw a Hail Mary play like that usually just delay the inevitable.

[Christophe Corazza]

So... Google got fined for developing and providing Google apps for the Google OS.

Can’t wait for Apple to be fined for providing Apple apps for their OS.

[Oshino Shinobu]

And yet Facebook only got a £500,000 fine for their massive misuse and negligence in protecting its users' data. 

 

Feels like this is the sort of figure Facebook should have got. 

[Daiyus]

18 hours ago, Christophe Corazza said:

So... Google got fined for developing and providing Google apps for the Google OS.

Can’t wait for Apple to be fined for providing Apple apps for their OS.

No, Google got fined for developing and providing an open platform then forcing it's licensees to bundle Google applications exclusively for certain tasks.

 

Apple only provide iOS on phones they manufacture and sell themselves and are free to package whatever applications they like out of the box.

 

The only thing close would be Microsoft Windows, but they don't force you to have Edge exclusively out of the box. Edge has got to be there as part of Windows but there's nothing stopping Acer, Samsung, etc packaging Firefox or Chrome out of the box as well. Google blocked that option with its partners knowing it could stifle competition which is abuse of their monopolistic position.

[Peskanova]

Well at least from what I've studied Microsoft made a lot of money because windows was free to code and on main OS that was IBM you need to pay to code.  ms-dos years

[mr moose]

29 minutes ago, Daiyus said:

No, Google got fined for developing and providing an open platform then forcing it's licensees to bundle Google applications exclusively for certain tasks.

 

Apple only provide iOS on phones they manufacture and sell themselves and are free to package whatever applications they like out of the box.

 

The only thing close would be Microsoft Windows, but they don't force you to have Edge exclusively out of the box. Edge has got to be there as part of Windows but there's nothing stopping Acer, Samsung, etc packaging Firefox or Chrome out of the box as well. Google blocked that option with its partners knowing it could stifle competition which is abuse of their monopolistic position.

So google got in trouble for giving people an open OS, if they had of kept it closed it would be different?  The fish still stinks.

[Daiyus]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

So google got in trouble for giving people an open OS, if they had of kept it closed it would be different?  The fish still stinks.

 

Yes, that's exactly right. Sure, Google has every right to demand that Chrome, Google Search etc have to be installed on every Android device made by a third-party by default. Just as Microsoft force Edge to be installed on every PC sold with Windows. Neither company can demand that they are the ONLY options installed out of the box without facing legal action.

 

If Apple were to license iOS to Samsung, or Huawei then they would not be allowed to restrict what those third parties can install out of the box on top of the iOS core package.

 

In this highly capitalistic world where is the harm in allowing third-party applications installed on top of your core out of the box? If your product is better then the user will disable, uninstall or ignore the competition anyway. Capitalism is based on choice; Google tried to limit the choice of their partners and hold the competition off at the pass. The fine is deserved in my opinion. If they wanted to secure Google exclusivity out of the box they should've kept Android in-house.

[kilgore_T]

On ‎18‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 12:38 PM, NelizMastr said:

Dutch prisons do it anyway. Sue them all!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-prisons-are-closing-because-the-country-is-so-safe-a7765521.html

 

[NelizMastr]

3 minutes ago, kilgore_T said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-prisons-are-closing-because-the-country-is-so-safe-a7765521.html

 

That article is false, I can assure you. Prison isn't the only option for criminals, so it's not only down to the country having low crime rates in general. In many cases criminals are confined to their home to do their time, rather than being locked away (depending on the case, of course) so that's also a factor.

[asus killer]

 

Trump came in Google's defense. Didn't even comment on the specifics, probably wouldn't understand. This is why it's important EU police this companies, the US could care less what about what they do.

[Dante Sol]

Google has a policy that if a company instalsl a fork of the android OS (Such as one lacking google apps and support) on any phone, Google will resend access to the google play store for ALL devices produced by that manufacturer. The EU's issue is that this keeps android phones to just the main google build. This had the effect that no one makes android builds without google serivces built in be cause the services are part of (the google fork of) android. Google’s terms force third party phone makers to choose between Android with Google Play, or Android forks. Google prohibits one company from doing both. 

 

Think about instead of windows phone, Microsoft made a version of android that used Bing instead of Google Search, Cortana instead of Google assist, Microsoft launcher instead of the default layout and Microsoft store instead of google play store. Microsoft went so far as to remove google from the OS completely. Microsoft goes to Samsung or HTC or Nokia etc. to get them to make a phone with this OS.  No one would dare touch it because google would resend the company's ability to user google play store on their google android phones. 

 

[vanished]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

So google got in trouble for giving people an open OS, if they had of kept it closed it would be different?  The fish still stinks.

Yeah I had a feeling that's where this was headed.  I'm all for ensuring an open and fair market without collusion and monopolistic practices, but something about this is obviously very wrong.  If you make a product that you keep to yourself you can do whatever you want, but if you allow other companies to use it, suddenly you're restricted to a tighter standard?  Makes no sense.  This shouldn't be about how open it is or how you allow other companies to use your product, it is (or at least should be) about abuse of market share.  It may well be that Google needs to be fined anyway, but it's important to make sure that's actually based on the right reasoning.

[Thaldor]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

So google got in trouble for giving people an open OS, if they had of kept it closed it would be different?  The fish still stinks.

Actually, Google got into trouble for giving people seemingly open OS.

 

Some reading and actually companies have to "pay" for Android trademark and Android Mobile Services. Google has apparently been moving some "vital" parts of Android (like camera, calendar...) from the free to use part of Android under the AMS (some of those parts are even totally cutted out and shipped only with Nexus phones). Google also doesn't really like when companies try to cherry pick the AMS or even sideload parts of it (Amazon FireOS) and those companies that tried to do it (mainly some Chinese) got banned from Play Store. Apparently after that Google transformed access to Play Store to fall under AMS and only "Google sertified"-phones can access it ("sertification" 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). These just right out killed the whole "Open Android" world because no one has any interest to try to make their own Android build because there's quite a huge chance that it won't pass the "sertification" for Play Store because it might not use AMS fully to Googles liking (example: Samsungs TouchWiz used to be completely different Android build, today it's only "bootloader" (KNOX), TouchWiz-launcher and some other bloatware). Google still watches the hobbyist side through their fingers, but that is completely different thing, just like WinRaR doesn't even care about consumers which is why you can just close the license promp and carry on, but businesses need to pay for WinRaR.

 

I haven't seen the EUs actual anti-trust verdict, but I could guess it's more about this than just "Google demanding companies to ship phones with Google Search and Chrome". And I guess the original complaints were about this because it seems to be quite a risky move to try to make your own Android build and ship your phones with it, because if they don't get the "Google sertification" they end up to the same pile of dirt as Jolla did (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).

 

(But as said, this is only what I got from reading about Androids licensing and what I understood from whole situation surrounding the AMS. I might be wrong and if I am, sorry)

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, Daiyus said:

 

Yes, that's exactly right. Sure, Google has every right to demand that Chrome, Google Search etc have to be installed on every Android device made by a third-party by default. Just as Microsoft force Edge to be installed on every PC sold with Windows. Neither company can demand that they are the ONLY options installed out of the box without facing legal action.

 

If Apple were to license iOS to Samsung, or Huawei then they would not be allowed to restrict what those third parties can install out of the box on top of the iOS core package.

 

In this highly capitalistic world where is the harm in allowing third-party applications installed on top of your core out of the box? If your product is better then the user will disable, uninstall or ignore the competition anyway. Capitalism is based on choice; Google tried to limit the choice of their partners and hold the competition off at the pass. The fine is deserved in my opinion. If they wanted to secure Google exclusivity out of the box they should've kept Android in-house.

 

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Actually, Google got into trouble for giving people seemingly open OS.

 

Some reading and actually companies have to "pay" for Android trademark and Android Mobile Services. Google has apparently been moving some "vital" parts of Android (like camera, calendar...) from the free to use part of Android under the AMS (some of those parts are even totally cutted out and shipped only with Nexus phones). Google also doesn't really like when companies try to cherry pick the AMS or even sideload parts of it (Amazon FireOS) and those companies that tried to do it (mainly some Chinese) got banned from Play Store. Apparently after that Google transformed access to Play Store to fall under AMS and only "Google sertified"-phones can access it ("sertification" 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). These just right out killed the whole "Open Android" world because no one has any interest to try to make their own Android build because there's quite a huge chance that it won't pass the "sertification" for Play Store because it might not use AMS fully to Googles liking (example: Samsungs TouchWiz used to be completely different Android build, today it's only "bootloader" (KNOX), TouchWiz-launcher and some other bloatware). Google still watches the hobbyist side through their fingers, but that is completely different thing, just like WinRaR doesn't even care about consumers which is why you can just close the license promp and carry on, but businesses need to pay for WinRaR.

 

I haven't seen the EUs actual anti-trust verdict, but I could guess it's more about this than just "Google demanding companies to ship phones with Google Search and Chrome". And I guess the original complaints were about this because it seems to be quite a risky move to try to make your own Android build and ship your phones with it, because if they don't get the "Google sertification" they end up to the same pile of dirt as Jolla did (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).

 

(But as said, this is only what I got from reading about Androids licensing and what I understood from whole situation surrounding the AMS. I might be wrong and if I am, sorry)

 

But even that, in and of itself, doesn't scream antitrust.  I would understand if the EU wants to make sure google aren't stopping the installation of apps, but it is not anti trust to want your own search bar and browser prominent on your own OS. 

 

 

[Mooshi]

Complaining about Chrome? May as well b'awww to Apple for making Safari the default browser for their products.

[NTDaws]

If I was google:

 

Well you shouldn't have trusted me I'm on drugs

[Stefan Payne]

8 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah I had a feeling that's where this was headed.  I'm all for ensuring an open and fair market without collusion and monopolistic practices, but something about this is obviously very wrong. 

Exactly.

 

And to be blunt:
Everyone who is surprised by the US fining Google for Android is an idiot.

The EU doesn't like if (US) Companys bundle one Product with others. That is what gave us the Windows N Version and M$ had to implement a Browser Selection Page.

And that they will convict Google for Android is as certain as the Amen in Church...

 

 

Quote

If you make a product that you keep to yourself you can do whatever you want, but if you allow other companies to use it, suddenly you're restricted to a tighter standard?  Makes no sense. 

Of course it makes sense!

In one you have full control over the software.

In the other you force others to do something they don't want to.

You use one product, that people want, to shove other products your company uses down the throat of others.

 

Quote

 

This shouldn't be about how open it is or how you allow other companies to use your product, it is (or at least should be) about abuse of market share.  It may well be that Google needs to be fined anyway, but it's important to make sure that's actually based on the right reasoning.

Yes, absolutely.

 

And this is one of the reasons we need governments and mechanisms to do something about tham.

They need to set the rules and enforce them. proactively...

You have the IRS that checks for Taxes, you need something like that for big corporate entitys.

 

And that doesn't happen especially in the US it seems.

And often the fine is just a joke compared to what the companys actually made...

And we need harsher punishments for anti competitive behaviour or misuse of Market Power...

It should be an incentive to not do that stuff and has to hurt.

 

 

[Thaldor]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

 

But even that, in and of itself, doesn't scream antitrust.  I would understand if the EU wants to make sure google aren't stopping the installation of apps, but it is not anti trust to want your own search bar and browser prominent on your own OS. 

 

 

How dense must you be to not understad that Google basicly has a button in their office that says: "Go F*** yourself and F*** off from the face of the Earth" but in a nicer manner like: "Terminate Play Store sertificates"?

 

For example: Today Google decides that the bootloader is part of the Android Mobile Services and any modification to it is considered forking. First off, Samsung looses all of their Play Store sertificates and every single piece of support and right to use Android, because they use their own KNOX within bootloader to flag rooted phones. Next the customer service lines are flooded by people who cannot even update their apps in their phone, because no one with a Samsung phone can access the Play Store. Samsung gets into probably the worst and the most unjustified media s***storm because all they really can do is to A) say that they can do nothing more than try to lick Googles donkey clean to get those sertificates back B) make a very huge (and probably impossible) update that removes KNOX from every phone, basicly do what Google wants them to do C) just say the people to steer to the Galaxy Store and that everything is fine. We all probably know how bad Note 7 case was, now it would be just every single Samsung device that uses Android and depends on Googles services, yes, even that fridge that can send you photo of its contents is useless, because it cannot upload that photo to the Google Drive (if Google was to terminate every single right to use their products). And so Google has brought one of the biggest electronic giants to it's knees with a single press of a button, think what it can do for something like Motorola, HTC, Doro or any other smaller phone manufacturer.

 

Microsoft has had that same power and paid dearly of it. Probably even now Microsoft has the power to bring any PC manufacturer to it's knees by just refusing to sell Windows licenses to them. Only difference is that Microsoft probably cannot do that retroactively and terminate every single Windows-license that is sold with that companys machines.

 

That is just too much power for a single private company to hold without some public intervention. Google wouldn't be in this position if it had kept it's promises about Android being free-to-use and open platform (it still is, but as stated the free-to-use and open part of the Android has been getting smaller and loosing features over time to the point where it's basicly useless without a lot of work, only thing making it different from the OSX is that OSXs GNU-licenced parts don't even work by themselves while with Android you get working base of an OS).

 

I would also like to clarify that EU hasn't yet fined Google a dime. This is the same situation as with Microsoft, EU "fines" a company to get its interest and start the conversation about what the company must do/change to not be fined. Yeah, that $5 billion is a lot of money even for a Google, but something like $5 million wouldn't really get Google to even turn it's ear to listen and that $5 billion did what it was ment to do, get the Google to go to the EU courts.

[mark_cameron]

On 7/20/2018 at 11:52 PM, Stefan Payne said:

Exactly.

 

And to be blunt:
Everyone who is surprised by the US fining Google for Android is an idiot.

The EU doesn't like if (US) Companys bundle one Product with others. That is what gave us the Windows N Version and M$ had to implement a Browser Selection Page.

And that they will convict Google for Android is as certain as the Amen in Church...

 

Of course it makes sense!

In one you have full control over the software.

In the other you force others to do something they don't want to.

You use one product, that people want, to shove other products your company uses down the throat of others.

 

Yes, absolutely.

 

And this is one of the reasons we need governments and mechanisms to do something about tham.

They need to set the rules and enforce them. proactively...

You have the IRS that checks for Taxes, you need something like that for big corporate entitys.

 

And that doesn't happen especially in the US it seems.

And often the fine is just a joke compared to what the companys actually made...

And we need harsher punishments for anti competitive behaviour or misuse of Market Power...

It should be an incentive to not do that stuff and has to hurt.

What the law in the EU - doesn't like

 

Is a company abusing its dominant market position (anti-competitive practices)

 

It ultimately leads to higher prices to consumers.

 

Hence it is ILLEGAL.

 

Monopolies themselves are not inherently illegal in Europe. Its abusive and restrictive trade practices that are by dominant market position companies. Also when companies under take concerted practices (i.e. anti-competitive agreements).

 

This is what Google have been fined (again) for.

 

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.

 

Its all about not allowing companies to abuse consumers.

 

On 7/20/2018 at 6:13 PM, mr moose said:

But even that, in and of itself, doesn't scream antitrust.  I would understand if the EU wants to make sure google aren't stopping the installation of apps, but it is not anti trust to want your own search bar and browser prominent on your own OS. 

US anti-trust law and EU competition law (which covers anti-trust and other behaviours) are slightly different.

 

Competition law in Europe is much broader than 'anti-trust'. It means if a company is a dominant position or a monopoly they have even more reason to not behave to restrict potential competition due to their size, because if they do they will be fined 10% global turnover until the activity ceases.

 

If I set up a software system that everyone must go through me to get, and I stop any one else I consider a competitor from accessing it, whilst paying sellers to prioritise me to keep out everyone else - I should expect to be fined.

 

Its the action of restriction, plus paying third parties to prioritise me - that is illegal.

[mr moose]

38 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

How dense must you be to not understad that Google basicly has a button in their office that says: "Go F*** yourself and F*** off from the face of the Earth" but in a nicer manner like: "Terminate Play Store sertificates"?

 

 

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. 

 

13 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

US anti-trust law and EU competition law (which covers anti-trust and other behaviours) are slightly different.

 

Competition law in Europe is much broader than 'anti-trust'. It means if a company is a dominant position or a monopoly they have even more reason to not behave to restrict potential competition due to their size, because if they do they will be fined 10% global turnover until the activity ceases.

 

If I set up a software system that everyone must go through me to get, and I stop any one else I consider a competitor from accessing it, whilst paying sellers to prioritise me to keep out everyone else - I should expect to be fined.

 

Its the action of restriction, plus paying third parties to prioritise me - that is illegal.

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.