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

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, asus killer said:

They are US companies, if the US acted the EU wouldn't have to.

No interference was needed to begin with.

3 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Depends if Google changes it practices or just continue as they have done and risk another fine.

No, manufacturers will continue including Google's services regardless, as well as additional services they want, as they always have.

 

Nothing changes, except that $5bil is set to transfer hands.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, asus killer said:

come on i just presented you the Internet Explorer case, and you say nothing changes. There is also the GPDR that changed a lot for the all world not just EU, as there is similar cases from Australia (steam). It may it may not. That statement makes no sense.

The IE case was nothing but a dog and pony show.

GPDR only changed that companies tell you they're collecting info and supposedly present an option to delete personal info. Except that's what the ToS is for, and large companies like Facebook and Google have had to offer that as part of the Right to be Forgotten legislation (hint, also changed nothing).

[asus killer]

23 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The IE case was nothing but a dog and pony show.

GPDR only changed that companies tell you they're collecting info and supposedly present an option to delete personal info. Except that's what the ToS is for, and large companies like Facebook and Google have had to offer that as part of the Right to be Forgotten legislation (hint, also changed nothing).

come one.

Microsoft could have killed all competition on the browser, sure you and me would install another but most people don't care to. Without customers there is no business.We could be left with only that awful IE.

GPDR it's important for people to know what's involved. And there are the fines for not disclosing data leaks and etc... Sure most still knowing about what they do still couldn't care less i give you that, but it's important.

And didn't Australia made steam refunds a thing if i'm not mistaken

I'm sure people can give other examples.

 

This regulations often work. May not be perfect but they are necessary. I don't buy the American way, business by themselves can self regulate, that is BS, complete BS.

[Sakkura]

49 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Just as much corruption in the EU when it comes to corporate affairs. It's just easier for the EU to steal money under the guise of " the consumers," because otherwise corpoorations have no reason to give them money.

Stepping on corporate rights, such as bundling one's own software and offering it as a final product, must be real hard work.

It's not stealing, there is due process protection. Google has appealed the decision to the courts.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

Microsoft could have killed all competition on the browser, sure you and me would install another but most people don't care to. Without customers there is no business.We could be left with only that awful IE.

No, they couldn't. They still bundle IE into every release, and other browsers overtook IE in spite of that, WITHOUT the "help" of the EU.

3 minutes ago, asus killer said:

GPDR it's important for people to know what's involved. And there are the fines for not disclosing data leaks and etc... Sure most still knowing about what they do still couldn't care less i give you that, but it's important.

Except that the only thing that actually changed is how they present what they present. Now, it's a huge dog and pony show instead of a small one.

 

5 minutes ago, asus killer said:

And didn't Australia made steam refunds a thing if i'm not mistaken

 You're mistaken. They only made it so that you didn't need an arguably good reason.

 

8 minutes ago, asus killer said:

This regulations often work

No, they don't. They just make what was already happening law or turn things into dog and pony shows, with little to ni change in the end.

 

9 minutes ago, asus killer said:

they are necessary

No, they're not.

9 minutes ago, asus killer said:

business by themselves can self regulate, that is BS, complete BS.

The only thing government can do to consistantly improve things is have a government funded alternative.

 

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

It's not stealing

Yeah, it is.

[Sakkura]

37 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The IE case was nothing but a dog and pony show.

GPDR only changed that companies tell you they're collecting info and supposedly present an option to delete personal info. Except that's what the ToS is for, and large companies like Facebook and Google have had to offer that as part of the Right to be Forgotten legislation (hint, also changed nothing).

Right to be forgotten has literally nothing to do with GDPR.

 

One has to do with publicly available information, the other has to do with private information.

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Yeah, it is.

Oh what a compelling point you make. "Nuh-uh!"

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I see a lot of anti-EU comments in this thread, but I'd like to remind everyone that the US has fairly similar laws, and in the 90's the US went even further than the EU when they published Microsoft for bundling IE with Windows. 

 

The US wanted to break to break up Microsoft into two companies when it was discovered all the anti-competitive shit they were doing. 

If we're honest with ourselves, a lot of it stems from who's being targeted.  Many on this forum are deep, deep Android devotees, and they don't like the thought that the company making their platform may be guilty of strong-arming its partners.  Everyone likes to think they support the hero; Google isn't necessarily a villain, but there are many, many people who don't want to admit that it's just another big company prone to abuses of power.

[asus killer]

23 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, they couldn't. They still bundle IE into every release, and other browsers overtook IE in spite of that, WITHOUT the "help" of the EU.

Except that the only thing that actually changed is how they present what they present. Now, it's a huge dog and pony show instead of a small one.

the problem was not the bundling (that was the US case against them), the EU wanted them to allow other browsers, if i remember correctly there were a menu you choose what browser to install back in the day. 

I may got some facts wrong but i think this was it.

 

 

i found an image

 

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, asus killer said:

the EU wanted them to allow other browsers

They did, prior to the waste of time and money that was the EU case.

[asus killer]

9 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

They did, prior to the waste of time and money that was the EU case.

i'm lost. They were fined half billion for not doing it. It's in the link. You don't have to read past the 1st paragraph

 

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-196_en.htm

 

You complaint about us complaining for the US not regulating but i guess you're just missing the particulars when other countries acted to make this companies more user friendly, and i'm not talking just about the EU.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

They were fined half billion for not doing it. It's in the link. You don't have to read past the 1st paragraph

That's because the EU stole that half billion for Microsoft not going "hey, you have options."

 

And as it turns out, the rest of the world has gotten aling just fine without that single window that serves the purpose of "Hey, stupid asswipe! Browsers are things that exist!"

 

So, the EU case was not only a waste of time and money going into it, but the end result enstills that the legislation was a waste of time and money.

[mark_cameron]

29 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That's because the EU stole that half billion for Microsoft not going "hey, you have options."

 

And as it turns out, the rest of the world has gotten aling just fine without that single window that serves the purpose of "Hey, stupid asswipe! Browsers are things that exist!"

 

So, the EU case was not only a waste of time and money going into it, but the end result enstills that the legislation was a waste of time and money.

"stole".

 

Really?

[asus killer]

56 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That's because the EU stole 

i only see the consumer side of things, i care not if it's Australia or China that make things right. But you're right there is a EU vs US war, but not in our part

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, asus killer said:

only see the consumer side of things

Fuck the "consumer side" of things. Consumers are selfish and stupud. They don't need every minor inconvenience changed for them, especially when it interferes with the roghts of businesses.

[Tech Enthusiast]

4 hours ago, mark_cameron said:

Its making you pay more for something you could get cheaper elsewhere.

 

It doesn't help competition.

 

Thats what the regulators have found.

Dude, don't just buy what courts say without checking it for yourself.

 

Exactly the opposite is true.

 

Right now you can get everything for free. How is that make you pay more?! Free is free, as in free in this case.

The EU is putting Google in a position that they CAN NO LONGER KEEP IT FREE.

 

 

So in the future, you will pay for the stuff. And you may not even be able to PICK what browser you want to use. You may be forced to use Samsung Internet. Or whatever Huawei likes to use. You may LOSE the option to choose. You may lose the option to install Firefox.

 

So what the regulators say is meaningless. It only shows how dumb they are. 

The Court ruling is negative for all of us. Less so for Google, more so for the consumer. We do not win anything here. Please get that into your mind. Just think about it for yourself for a second, and you will easily come to the same conclusion. There is nothing Google can do now that does not hurt us. So thanks EU.

[asus killer]

15 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Fuck the "consumer side" of things. Consumers are selfish and stupud. They don't need every minor inconvenience changed for them, especially when it interferes with the roghts of businesses.

wow, just wow. 

[Drak3]

11 minutes ago, asus killer said:

wow, just wow. 

Oh spare me the bullshit. I live both sides daily.

 

The consumer is a stupid, selfish fuck that doesn't need to be coddled at every inconvenience.

[asus killer]

21 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Oh spare me the bullshit. I live both sides daily.

 

The consumer is a stupid, selfish fuck that doesn't need to be coddled at every inconvenience.

what are corporations then? so as to get "both sides"

 

i'm going to assume you're from Murika, am i right?

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, asus killer said:

what are corporations then? so as to get "both sides"

Tactical, selfishly driven, and responcible for its employees.

[mr moose]

55 minutes ago, Rattenmann said:

Dude, don't just buy what courts say without checking it for yourself.

 

Exactly the opposite is true.

 

Right now you can get everything for free. How is that make you pay more?! Free is free, as in free in this case.

The EU is putting Google in a position that they CAN NO LONGER KEEP IT FREE.

 

 

So in the future, you will pay for the stuff. And you may not even be able to PICK what browser you want to use. You may be forced to use Samsung Internet. Or whatever Huawei likes to use. You may LOSE the option to choose. You may lose the option to install Firefox.

 

So what the regulators say is meaningless. It only shows how dumb they are. 

The Court ruling is negative for all of us. Less so for Google, more so for the consumer. We do not win anything here. Please get that into your mind. Just think about it for yourself for a second, and you will easily come to the same conclusion. There is nothing Google can do now that does not hurt us. So thanks EU.

I do fear this is a very plausible outcome from this, if Google switches to the apple model you can kiss side loading apps goodbye, you can expect to be at the whim of each manufacturer as to which apps you can use and you can expect to pay more for each phone.

 

I personally have no love for google (I hate android and using it loathingly) I'm not fond of apple, but I do recognize when a company should be able to prioritize it's own products on its on products.

 

 

[mark_cameron]

1 hour ago, Rattenmann said:

Dude, don't just buy what courts say without checking it for yourself.

 

Exactly the opposite is true.

 

Right now you can get everything for free. How is that make you pay more?! Free is free, as in free in this case.

The EU is putting Google in a position that they CAN NO LONGER KEEP IT FREE.

 

 

So in the future, you will pay for the stuff. And you may not even be able to PICK what browser you want to use. You may be forced to use Samsung Internet. Or whatever Huawei likes to use. You may LOSE the option to choose. You may lose the option to install Firefox.

 

So what the regulators say is meaningless. It only shows how dumb they are. 

The Court ruling is negative for all of us. Less so for Google, more so for the consumer. We do not win anything here. Please get that into your mind. Just think about it for yourself for a second, and you will easily come to the same conclusion. There is nothing Google can do now that does not hurt us. So thanks EU.

Please do not try and tell me what to think. I do law for a living.

[Amazonsucks]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I see a lot of anti-EU comments in this thread, but I'd like to remind everyone that the US has fairly similar laws, and in the 90's the US went even further than the EU when they published Microsoft for bundling IE with Windows. 

 

The US wanted to break to break up Microsoft into two companies when it was discovered all the anti-competitive shit they were doing. 

And yet Bill Gates got to keep M$ intact. I wonder what the govt demanded in exchange for that. Maybe when the NSA leaks happened and they had to quit spying so much, they called in a favor and released a free OS with a lot of spying capability?

[mark_cameron]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Fuck the "consumer side" of things. Consumers are selfish and stupud. They don't need every minor inconvenience changed for them, especially when it interferes with the roghts of businesses.

Every member of this forum is a "consumer"

[Tech Enthusiast]

2 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

Please to try and tell me what to think. I do law for a living.

That may be the reason you fail to understand the outcome here.

 

Law is something you can change as you see fit in court. Depending on the judge, you can make the opposite of the law text suddenly true.

 

This is not about law tho.

This is about what happens because of the ruling. I don't care if someone, somewhere agrees or does not agree with how this ruling has been done.

The final result is what matters to me as a customer. And the final result is the worst case scenario. The law did one thing here: It screwed up big time and fucked the customers, possibly worldwide. To even think this is a victory of sorts just shows how silly this law was handled. 

[mark_cameron]

Just now, Rattenmann said:

That may be the reason you fail to understand the outcome here.

 

Law is something you can change as you see fit in court. Depending on the judge, you can make the opposite of the law text suddenly true.

 

This is not about law tho.

This is about what happens because of the ruling. I don't care if someone, somewhere agrees or does not agree with how this ruling has been done.

The final result is what matters to me as a customer. And the final result is the worst case scenario. The law did one thing here: It screwed up big time and fucked the customers, possibly worldwide. To even think this is a victory of sorts just shows how silly this law was handled. 

The out come will be increased competition.

 

Which is an academic fact: that benefits consumers through reduced costs/prices and innovation.

 

This principle of law has time and again benefited consumers in all industry sectors.

 

Go learn economics. Economists don't like anti competitive practices.