Europe Is Going After Google For Anti-Competitive Behavior With Android 231
Google now faces more competition charges in the European Union. The EU has accused Google of skewing the market against competitors with its Android mobile operating system. The 28-member state bloc's antitrust commissioner concluded in a preliminary decision that the search giant has abused its dominant position in the market by imposing restrictions on Android device makers. "What we found is that Google pursues an overall strategy on mobile devices to protect and expand its dominant position in internet search," said Margrethe Vestager, the EU competition chief. "The commission is concerned that Google's behaviour has harmed consumers by restricting competition and innovation," she added. "Rival search engines and mobile operating systems have not been able to compete on their merits. This is not good." Google has three months to respond to the aforementioned charges. The New York Times reports: Europe's antitrust charges might not necessarily lead to financial or other penalties against Google. If it is found to have broken the region's rules, though, the company may face fines of up to 10 percent of its global revenue, or roughly $7 billion, the maximum allowable amount. Google denies that it has broken European competition rules, saying that its dealings with cellphone manufacturers like Samsung and HTC, among others, are voluntary, and that rival mobile services are readily available on its Android software.According to EU, Google has breached antitrust rules by:1. requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps; 2. preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code; 3. giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices."The joke in Google's cafeteria today will be "let them use bing," said Andrew Parker, VC. "So disappointing that browser dominance on Android is the only thing that the EU can get worked up about," Blaine Cook, co-founder of Poetica noted. "The European Commission's statement of objections against Android lends further credibility to Oracle's $9B copyright claim," Florian Mueller, the founder of FOSS Patents blog wrote.
Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that Android is the only mobile OS that actually allows phone manufacturers/carriers to change the default search engine or browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Android is the only mobile OS that actually allows phone manufacturers/carriers to change the default search engine or browser.
False. BBOS and BB10 have allowed the carriers to change the default search engine for several years - even before Android was around.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Android is the only mobile OS that actually allows phone manufacturers/carriers to change the default search engine or browser.
Is that so? I'd wager you'd be hard-pressed to back that claim up by naming a single mobile OS that prevents manufacturers from changing the default. After all, the point is moot with most of the other OSes (e.g. iOS, Windows), simply because the companies behind them do their own manufacturing. The thing that's notable about Android is that it's the only major OS for which that (mostly) isn't the case, which is also why your statement has the ring of truth to it at first glance, even though it's factually
Re:Ironic (Score:5, Interesting)
Which part of "allows phone manufacturers/carriers to change the default search engine or browser" did you not understand?
Users on Android can change both the search engine and the browser if they like.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly I dont give a rats ass what phone manufacturers/carriers feel about this. They have already wasted huge amount of customers time and effort putting in unremovable trashware over the years. Let the damned end users have the choice.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like this [cyanogenmod.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny. I had to replace the whole launcher to add it. Samsung doesn't ship with it by default and the Touchwiz launcher fire's up Samsungs stupid magazine on the left screen instead of Google Now.
What you're complaining about was not an Android problem, in fact it is an example of how little value this antitrust investigation has.
Re: (Score:3)
Erm no. There was no replacing it. Much like holding down the home key activates S-Voice without the ability to disable the feature. If there was the ability to get rid of it they put enough effort into making it counter-intuitive enough that at least one person (me) found it easier simply to install a different home-screen.
Re: Ironic (Score:3)
They used to sell tablets not preloaded with Google apps. No one bought them. Fortunately it was trivial to install them, but users prefer to have a consistent ecosystem.
They should sue Apple for not allowing you to remove and replace the App store. This is a choice for android.
Re: Ironic (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the problem with Google is not the search engine. It's the Play store. Like you said, Android devices without it don't sell. But if you want it, then you have to obey some rather onerous terms. Like you must include ALL the Google apps. And they must be default - doesn't matter if you want to use HERE maps or other map service - the Google Maps must be the default. Also, all Google apps must be one click away from the home screen by default (that's why there's a Google Apps folder on the home screen).
Samsung is probably closest to being able to get rid of Google's apps because they've developed alternatives to every application Google has. But because they still license Google Play, they must include all of Google's apps by default. It's why Samsung phones seem to have duplicates.
That's the real problem - iOS is pretty safe since it's Apple-only, and it's hard to argue that Apple's in a monopoly position when 4 Androids with Google are sold for every iOS.
It's the fact that you can't unbundle the Google apps, or phone developers can't replace it with their own by default, if you want Play, you have to agree to those terms.
Re: (Score:3)
I think Google could maybe resolve this particular issue if they offered a Play-only option for, say, $20 per shipped phone, without being allowed to install the rest of the gapps by default (i.e. the user would have to install their favorite Google apps one-by-one).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Carriers/Manufacturers (reading comprehension is a lost art)
He's actually correct, at least with regards to manufacturers. None of the OSes he listed prevent manufacturers from changing the default settings (of course, the point is rather moot, since those OSes were developed by their manufacturers). As for carriers, why is that being bragged about as if it were a good thing? Carriers have no business changing default values for user-facing settings.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, iOS's default search engine can be chosen by the manufacturer as well. ;)
Not just search (Score:2)
Its also market, maps, calendar, etc. Gapps include so many services, many of them made in a way that the app developer has to choose between google proprietary and competitors. If some startup proclaims to compete with google, they usually get bought up, and don't continue to offer their services.
Competing Services (Score:2)
If some startup proclaims to compete with google, they usually get bought up, and don't continue to offer their services.
Oh really?
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No, Cyanogen is the startup, and they partnered with Microsoft.
Offering SaaS cloud applications is not a cheap thing to do, especially on the scale that the likes of Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and to a lesser extent Yandex have pulled off. Hence it would make sense that if a startup was to do something like this, they'd partner with a bigger company.
Google has a browser? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently the logic of the EU regulators had the desired effect.
Re:Google has a browser? (Score:5, Informative)
That window was what allowed Firefox to take hold. Can you imagine browsing without tabs? Firefox introduced tabs, and that feature alone made it immensely popular. FF made IE look so much like a lump of coal that FF quickly jumped to about 25% market share. By the time the EU browser choice requirement [bbc.com] was implemented (Dec 2009), FF was already over 30% market share [cloudfront.net]. Google's Chrome browser had already been steadily growing in popularity for most of that year, and FF actually decreased in market share after the EU-mandated browser choice.
So it'd be more accurate to say Microsoft blew it big time by choosing to stand still because they had a monopoly, but that only cost them about a third of their monopoly. It took another quasi-monopoly (Google search + apps) to break Microsoft's OS-browser monopoly for good. I'm not sure the EU browser choice window had any effect. IE was already on the way down at the end of 2009 when the EU mandate was implemented. And the rate at which IE declined in market share didn't change appreciably from before 1Q 2010 to after.
(That's not to say I disagree with the EU mandate. I was actually more anti-Microsoft back in those days and felt they should've been broken up into an OS company and an apps company. But the problem with government regulation in software is that it just takes too damn long, and by the time it's finally implemented the entire software landscape has already changed for other reasons.)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you didn't notice but Microsoft had to add the browser choice screen to all EU versions of Windows, and at the time there was a noticeable shift away from IE. It's also likely that the EU and US complaints about IE were a factor in its long stagnation period, during which Firefox and then Chrome were able to gain market share quickly.
Another thing we can thank the EU for is Windows N. It's like normal Windows but doesn't include the Media Player and some other bloatware we never use.
What has this to do with any copyright claim? (Score:2, Interesting)
How on Earth does "The European Commission's statement of objections against Android lends further credibility to Oracle's $9B copyright claim,"?
This is a total non-sequitur.
The key is the apps (Score:4, Interesting)
Google's lock in system bases not on the google-owned apps (they are just a few, and yes they are very much used by users, but I guess people can come up with an alternative). The main reason to be locked in to Google is their proprietary APIs they offer to app developers. You can't simply take an apk and publish it on an alternative market, if there are no gapps installed on the device, most of the apps won't work.
So even if a competitor managed to replace all the gapps that are exposed to the user (maps, search, etc), they still would have a very hard time at building a competing app store. Most of the app developers don't want to port the app if the user count is low and nobody would install it if they couldn't install all the apps.
Its the same issue linux is facing. People don't care about operating systems. They want to install an application, and if it doesn't work, its not the fault of the application developers, its the fault of the operating system (at least for them).
Re:The key is the apps (Score:5, Interesting)
Google's lock in system bases not on the google-owned apps (they are just a few, and yes they are very much used by users, but I guess people can come up with an alternative). The main reason to be locked in to Google is their proprietary APIs they offer to app developers. You can't simply take an apk and publish it on an alternative market, if there are no gapps installed on the device, most of the apps won't work.
I don't see that.
Looking at the APIs in question [google.com], I see a pretty extensive list, but it's pretty much all just stuff to interact with Google services. There are APIs for:
Google ads
Google analytics
Google search integration (AppIndexing)
Google account authentication
Google cast devices
Google drive integration
Google fit integration
Google games integration
Google cloud messaging integration
Google location services
Google maps integration
Google street view integration
Google+ integration
Google vision integration (server-based service for doing object recognition)
Google wallet integration
Wear integration
Only the last item (Wear integration) isn't obviously tied to some Google server-side systems. And while the above list is a pretty useful set of services for apps that want to use them, there are lots and lots of apps that have absolutely no need for any of the above... with one exception. I suspect what breaks most apps that don't work on non-GMS devices is the lack of the ads API. But there are third-party ads libraries which wrap the GMS ads API as well as other ads APIs so that app developers who don't want to be tied to Google only (and many do like to use other ad networks, so there's a reason for this other than independence of GMS APIs) can use those. Thanks to the run-time class loading and introspection features of Java, it's fairly easy to write code that checks whether a particular class (e.g. com.google.android.gms.ads.MobileAds) is present, and to then do something more useful than crashing if it's not and AFAIK all of the ads aggregation APIs do that.
My perception is that Google tries hard to ensure that as much as possible goes into the core system, and as little as possible goes into the GMS APIs. The exceptions are (a) things that are inherently tied to Google services and (b) things that Google wants to be able to update on its own (e.g. WebView). That second category is stuff that Google will move back to the core system if and when OEMs fix their update process problems, I expect.
(Disclosure: I'm a Google Android engineer. Note that I'm carefully *not* addressing the topic of the EU anti-trust investigation, and I will not, for obvious reasons.)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, its great to see google being devoted to open source this much. Not many companies do release so much code. That's really cool! I guess this also helped convincing Microsoft to abandon their "Open source == cancer" strategy, proving that you can be the leader of a market *and* release open source software.
Most apps will use at least two of analytics, ads, and GCM, probably almost all will use at least one of those three.
Also its good for Google being able to have at least some influence on the
Re: (Score:3)
You can't simply take an apk and publish it on an alternative market, if there are no gapps installed on the device, most of the apps won't work.
There are over 1,800 apps on the FDroid repository alone that work just fine without Google's apps. Many of them are also available on Google Play. Android is actually really good about not requiring Google Apps to work, and distros like Cyanogen offer FOSS replacements for them. Basically the APIs used are public and can be implemented by any app simply by taking ownership of the relevant "intents".
Re: (Score:3)
There are over 1,800 apps on the FDroid repository alone that work just fine without Google's apps.
And there are even more apps that are open source but not on F-Droid because they use one Google API or another. Think of Signal, for example. Also, often developers add a feature to an app where they integrate Google maps or something, and bam the new version of the app can't be included into F-Droid anymore. This puts lots of stress onto the app developers, as they now have to develop for two stores, not just one, and very often they are annoyed by the F-Droid crowd demanding to remove Google API usage wh
Re: (Score:2)
That must be why the Amazon App store is empty then?
Re: (Score:2)
That must be why the Amazon App store is empty then?
Well, largely, yeah. There are only a fraction of apps in comparison. It takes special work to port over now because you have to reimplement / workaround that stuff from Google Services API that you can't use and for many developers it's not worth the effort.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, most of the apps won't work if there is no gapps installed on the device. Some of them will continue to work, I agree with that.
I'm not sure these guys know how computers work (Score:3)
From the first link:
...However, if a manufacturer wishes to pre-install Google proprietary apps, including Google Play Store and Google Search, on any of its devices, Google requires it to enter into an "Anti-Fragmentation Agreement" that commits it not to sell devices running on Android forks.
Which makes sooooo much sense from a software shop perspective as well as a historical one as well. You want there to be as singular as an install base as possible. Same goes for the Linux kernel. Is the commission going to go after that next?
A second section:
As a result, rival search engines are not able to become the default search service on the significant majority of devices sold in the EEA.
Defaults can be pretty powerful, just go ask Microsoft and IE. But that doesn't stop people from installing something that works better for them. See Chrome and Firefox, both of which were able to overcome IE's default market position by offering a product that people liked better. The same can and should happen here.
I think there should be a space between the search results and the advertisement side of Alphabet. However, that's an entirely separate issue from Android. The same goes for privacy. Both are important enough to break out on their own, so this? This is nuts.
Re: (Score:3)
Missing the point (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't care Google Play is the only app store. I don't care they impose restrictions on vendors. I don't care. What I do care about is the lack of innovation in mobile browsers. The sole reason native mobile app are and remain so popular is the lack of a proper web-based alternative, which is likely to be actively held back by Apple and Google, effectively creating a monopoly for native apps while we could have had proper web-based apps (with offline support, proper notifications, proper storage, proper in
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Informative)
There's also the thing that web apps suck. The web is a hypertext platform, not an app platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla tried that and all the naysayers on here said Firefox OS was a bad idea, so they killed it.
I personally liked the OS...
Re: (Score:2)
The sole reason native mobile app are and remain so popular is the lack of a proper web-based alternative, which is likely to be actively held back by Apple and Google, effectively creating a monopoly for native apps while we could have had proper web-based apps
If web-based apps were so much better, you'd be using them already. They aren't, so you aren't. Apple has done bad things to competing browsers, but Google hasn't, and yet mobile Firefox still sucks. That's not Google's fault.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, so the worm has turned.
Remember 10 years ago when the iPhone came out, and all it had was web apps, and everyone bitched and moaned that they hadn't published developer tools and an API to code against?
And this was when there actually was enough innovation in mobile browsers, as Safari Mobile made every other browser on every other phone look like a joke, leading to WebKit (and it's descendants) to rule the browser market today.
Bing Bong (Score:5, Insightful)
Rule #1 (Score:5, Funny)
nationalism and greed (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't kid yourself: tools like Margrethe Vestager exist for two simple reasons. First, wounded European pride, namely the fact that Europe is far behind the US in innovation and high tech. Second, uncompetitive European corporations are trying to win through political machinations when they can't win in the market.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I know English is a tough language, but you could at least try! "Uncompetitive European corporations are trying..." doesn't mean "all European corporations are uncompetitive". In fact, even you might be able to figure out which uncompetitive European corporations particularly dislike Google. Hint: it's not
Re: (Score:2)
Don't kid yourself: tools like Margrethe Vestager exist for two simple reasons. First, wounded European pride, namely the fact that Europe is far behind the US in innovation and high tech. Second, uncompetitive European corporations are trying to win through political machinations when they can't win in the market.
OK, rarr rarr USA, whatever.
If you knew anything outside your little patriotic bubble you'd know the EU quite commonly has gone after European pharma conglomerates. Also, laws here are tighter around competition and privacy than in the US, so obviously US companies are going to fall foul of them more often because they are not stopped at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, privacy and competition are more limited in Europe. What's your point?
It's because of my "patriotic bubble" in Europe that I emigrated to the US. Imagine that.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, privacy and competition are more limited in Europe. What's your point?
Er... that if Google is not following the law that all companies operating in EU have to follow, that does not make applying that law protectionism.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right: the nature of a law doesn't depend on whether it is applied or whether people obey it.
For example, the Nuremberg Laws were anti-Semitic even though many Germans didn't actually follow them.
Once again, the Europeans are going off the cliff (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, based off what I read, 1 & 3 are true but they are common business practices used in multiple areas. 2 is completely false but market forces make it look true.
A good example of 1 & 3 is Coke. If you decide to have Coke in your business, Coke will give you things as promotional considerations. Signs with you name on it plus the Coke logo, etc. But to get those you have to not carry Pepsi. That's the crux of 1 & 3. If you want to carry both, then you don't get the goodies that go along with them. You can preload Play with something else, but not Maps, Gmail and the other unless you agree to exclusivity for the preinstalled items. (The Play concession was made a while back to satisfy some anti-trust worries). More manufactures don't do that though because of the incentives plus market forces. People want Google's stuff there and ready. Google isn't holding a gun to people's head saying "Use Gmail or else". There are plenty of option and I use one myself in the form of AquaMail to my non-Gmail e-mail.
As for #2, hello, phones being sold running Cyanogen and others based on AOSP derivatives, but they don't have a big market share yet, or maybe ever. Market forces (people) aren't creating a demand for them. Thus the big guys don't make Cyanogen phones because people won't buy them en mass. And it's not for a lack of trying. Look at Samsung and all the times they've tried to do Tizen as an Android alternative. They never got anywhere. The mass market is happy with what they have. Phone OSs are a two horse race (Android and iOS). You're not going to force the market to accept more if they don't want it, but that's seems to be what the EU is angling for with #2.
This is just how I see it. I'm sure someone is going to come along with some conspiracy and collusion theory as to why I'm wrong, but this is a situation where the simple answer is the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
That they are common do not mean they are intentonal. There is a difference between having to pay a fee per shipment of goods, and being able to bundle goods per shipment. The former is a example of why restaurants only carry soft drinks from one brand: To order more than 1 brand would require more than 1 shipment, which costs money.
Which is also why shipment services exist in the first place. To a business it might be cheaper to hire a third party to pick up all the goods and deliver it, then to have have
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Once more from the rooftops:
The rules change when you become a monopoly.
Apple still play but they are a relatively niche provider in the worldwide scheme of things, so it's becoming fair to think of Android as a monopoly. You have to act deliberately carefully when everybody *has* to use you otherwise you will get regulated, and there's evidence of deliberate control of the market by Google.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure someone is going to come along with some conspiracy and collusion theory as to why I'm wrong
I don't think much refutation is required for "Google is only doing the same sort of things that got Coke fined for monopoly abuse".
Re: (Score:3)
As for #2, hello, phones being sold running Cyanogen and others based on AOSP derivatives, but they don't have a big market share yet, or maybe ever.
It's not well explained in the summary, but one of the conditions when licensing the Play Store for inclusion in your Android phones is that you can't release phones with Android forks. I don't know the exact wording but you get the idea. So #2 is actually true, it's just not clearly explained in the summary
Did I read that correctly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Rival search engines and mobile operating systems have not been able to compete on their merits. This is not good."
I don't even know what to say about this! If you can't compete on your own merits then where is the problem? Give me something better and maybe I'll try it. WebOS was pretty good, but it couldn't compete on it's merits either. We all see where it is. Make a better product. Google and Apple did and they are winning. On their own merits.
I think you're parsing that incorrectly. The quote is saying that rival search engines are being prevented from competing on their merits. Preinstallation is everything, because user inertia means you won't usually go to the trouble of changing the search engine. So if Google use their power to prevent preinstallation of a rival, you aren't likely to ever know of its merits.
same rules for everybody (Score:2, Insightful)
...requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser...
If it is wrong for Microsoft to do it, then it must also be wrong for Google, even if their practise isn't unpopular (yet).
#2 is factually false (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The people involved in competition disputes are actually interested in whether there is real competition and if a company is trying to use dominance in one are to gain dominance in another. They are not intereste in theoretically things that could compete but aren't.
Remember the point is not about having a monopoly it's about abusing it.
Why is the EU attacking Google? (Score:2)
Is it just because they're American? They're not actually doing any of this shit. Carriers are free to bundle another search, and they don't have to put google search on the home screen. They can also bundle another browser or whatever if they like. The truth is that there is no viable competition for most gapps. It's not because google has done anything to prevent it; if someone else can come up with something better, then they are free to put it in the app store and people will download it.
I can think of a few ways ... (Score:2)
... those complaints could apply to Apple aswell.
Just sayin'.
Anyhoodles (Score:2)
It's a market that wouldn't even exist but for Google. Prior to this search engines were shitty, pure text searches. Some were toying with auto rankings of search phrases based on which results people actuay clicked on (I think Ask Jeeves(?) had a patent on that?)
Anyway, this much deeper search is all Google, which is why people went to them.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about anyone else, but I always have to go back to Google to find info on Microsoft.com (especially technical articles or programming specs), updates for Microsoft or Logitech stuff, items on Best Buy, because all their searches are old-school pure text shit.
No, Microsoft. If I push F1 in Excel on a Visual Basic keyword in Excel, I am not looking for something in a Java or Microsoft Access language.
This is why you fail.
Apple (Score:3)
This must be Apple's hypocritical doing. How come Apple hasn't been sued for monopolistic practices? When you buy apps or movies on iTunes (legally) you are have to spend money to repurchase them if you want to switch to Android. Also there is no way to re-sell apps that you bought once you are done with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, all browsers running on iOS have to use the Apple rendering engine!
Amazon (Score:2)
Amazon apparently has no major issues taking Android and turning it into something entirely different, with their own interface and tools for their Fire line of products. Are these not available in the EU or somethin?
Florian Mueller (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You know if the brits leave the EU, that's a good thing. They were the major stopgap hindering to get real work done against the banks in the late 00's banking crisis.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I would definitely vote for that. However, in that case the UK will break up and a small portion will come back to us.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't we make a deal? We push over the UK to the US and we get Canada in return. We are used to multi-lingual countries.
That way everybody will be happy.
Sorry, the UK tried twice to stay a pert of us and we turned them down. Canada might go for it since they turned down our generous attempt to get them to join us, but France might object to having to learn Canadian French, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
England might go, but Scotland is likely to take independence and remain/rejoin the EU in that case, as well as possibly Wales. So you will need a big carving knife to divvy the UK up with first.
Re: (Score:2)
(Fortunately we've got loads of friends there, which will make the move easier).
Cauterize (Score:2)
I would like a button in Android that disables all Google applications and services, and halts any communication with Google servers.
That would be a wonderful new addition to Android. Sometimes the telemetry is just an uninvited guest.
This would conventionally be done with Cyanogenmod by omitting gapps post-install. There are two problems with that approach: a) fascist carriers with locked bootloaders, and b) a very high technical skillset that is not available to novice users.
A simple button to "caut
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Vote Leave (Score:4, Insightful)
You know if the brits leave the EU, that's a good thing. They were the major stopgap hindering to get real work done against the banks in the late 00's banking crisis.
Sadly, this may well be the case. To all those in UK who are for brexit because 'EU limits the sovereign power of Parliament': is that really such a bad thing, when you think about it? Would it really be sensible to put more power into the hands of the likes of Osbourne, Cameron, ...? And they are actually at the more decent end of the spectrum, as Tories go. EU has brought a lot of benefits to UK, quite apart from the economic gains.
Don't get me wrong - I am very much a Eurosceptic, as most sensible people would be, but I think even in its current configuration, it is still the right thing to stay in EU and work to change it from within. I don't buy into the 'passionate' arguments for or against, I have much more respect for level-headed reasoning and balanced views. So far in the debate, the leave side sound far more emotional in their arguments than the remain side - and especially Jeremy Corbin's pragmatic views ring true, exactly because he so clearly doesn't like EU much, but on balance has to concede that it is in fact better to stay in. That's how I feel, and I think a lot of people agree.
Re: (Score:2)
People argue that the EU is less democratic than the UK, but really it's just larger. For example, there is an elected chamber full of directly elected MEPs (the European Parliament), two other bodies (the Commission and the Council) who are made up of people selected by our elected representatives. So it's kinda like the House of Commons and House of Lords, one elected and the other appointed by the elected representatives, except that the Lords has >800 members and the EU bodies have a total of 28 each
Re: (Score:2)
The EU has a parliament by the way. And it has even a mechanism for direct democratic voting. But I admit that it could be more legitimized by the peoples, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Delete the 'somewhat' from that last sentence and you are describing the United States Presidential Primary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Thing is all the pro-leave people seem bloody nuts and completely ignorant of the facts.
particular, the rest of the EU will have to learn to be more responsible, rather than relying on the UK to bail them out.
TIL UK == Germany.
You mean the banking crisis that was mostly created by government-run banks making loans based on political pressure?
What government run banks? They only became government run after going bust and getting bailed out.
Re: (Score:2)
Many European banks are part government owned and have been for a long time.
You mean like yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
Many European banks are part government owned and have been for a long time.
The british banks went bust just fine without government ownership, so I'm really not sure what the hell you're talking about.
You mean like yourself?
I see you chose not to dispute my dispute of your claim that the UK is Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure lots of private individuals, corporations, and independent banks suffered as the result of a crisis originally created by government policies.
I made no such claim. Are you off your meds and hallucinating again?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure lots of private individuals, corporations, and independent banks suffered as the result of a crisis originally created by government policies.
Ah so you've resorted to moving the goalposts. Well played. *clap* *clap*.
I made no such claim. Are you off your meds and hallucinating again?
I was being facetiouis. Go reag my reply and revel in the comment that you ignored because you know I'm right and you can't answer it.
Basically you're a typical Euroskeptic, when you come across an inconvenient fact, yo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid you moved the goalposts. I said that government-run banks were involved in creating the crises. You then responded that private banks needed to be bailed out. Of course, you probably don't understand the difference between the two statements, understandable given your educational background.
Actually, I'm quite the atypical Euroskeptic, because I actually voted with my feet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How did the UK ever bail out the rest of the EU? You seem to be confusing the UK and Germany.
Re: (Score:3)
If we leave it will be an economic disaster for us, and in the long run give Europe a boost as e.g. Frankfurt takes over as the biggest European financial services hub.
On the other hand, we will lose control of our borders and immigration will become easier. Cameron's deal tries to tighten the rules on freedom of movement with spouses. If the UK leaves the EU will most likely ditch those changes, and of course the UK will be forced to accept freedom of movement as that's a non-negotiable part of the EU free
Re: (Score:3)
I remember this scare story from when we didn't join the Euro. Wrong then, wrong now.
Wrong, the EU has a free trade deal with Turkey without free movement. You are confusing the "single market" with free trade.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember this scare story from when we didn't join the Euro. Wrong then, wrong now.
Not really. London had to start handling Euros, and we had to accept all the EU financial rules to stay competitive. The difference here is that if we don't accept the financial rules we will be unable to sell many of our financial services to EU countries, and one of the stated goals of leaving is to ditch those rules.
For an example of what it will be like, look at Switzerland and Canada. Either the bankers will riot as they lose access to the EU market, or the people will riot as we accept all the EU rule
Re: (Score:2)
The UK won't be able to make the rules stricter, and won't be able to veto countries like Turkey entering the EU, so EU immigration will increase.
What are you talking about? The UK is pro Turkey within the EU, as is David Cameron.
The UK don't want the EU to succeed, therefore getting Turkey in the EU is the best way to achieve that and to slow down EU integration.
Re: (Score:2)
What I can't understand is why anyone takes that useless twat Muller seriously.
Re:The EU has fucked up antitrust laws (Score:5, Insightful)
claiming that low prices were predatory
Low predatory pricing is *the* tool against destroying competition that's smaller than you. You are the big one, you have the capital to keep the price low (even if it's not profitable for you!), for as long as you want. You just wait until your small competition either gets no customers because their prices aren't competing with your's or they go bankrupt because they used up their much smaller capital much faster than you.
Then, after all small competition is ruled out, you can rise prices again and make much more money than you spent on the aggressive predatory pricing.
Re: The EU has fucked up antitrust laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All the monopolies you just listed are explicitly government-created.
So you seriously suggest that the only way a company should be able to compete with a cable provider is to dig up the whole earth and lay a second piece of fiber next to the already existing and working one, just in order to connect a home? Don't you think this is a waste? And last but not least, somebody would have to pay for the second set of fibers, and that's (as always) the customers.
About drug patents: they are unfortunate, but they are required. The most important principle of medicine is that it sho
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be your Samsung, HTC, or Motorola iPad?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Europe announces that they're ruled by a bunch of fucktards that have no clue about anything
Which country isn't?
Re: (Score:2)
"outside their borders"? Google provides lots of services for EU residents.
"your lil countries"? The EU has some 500 million citizen, compared to the US' 350 or so million.
The shareholders would kill Googles executives if they decided to leave the second biggest market.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the nice things about an Android phone is you can stay completely divorced from Google if you choose. You can install the Amazon App Store instead and never, ever, log onto Google, and still have a rich selection of Apps to install.
Of course, then you're hooking your wagon to Amazon instead, which isn't really a lot different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try the same thing on an Apple phone. Last time I knew you couldn't even use another web browser engine, even their alternatives had to run the same core form the OS. And you sure aren't going to change the 'store' on an Apple phone. It may not be easy on Android, but you can do it.