EU Regulators Fine Google Record $5 Billion in Android Case (reuters.com) 468
The European Union hit Alphabet's Google with a record antitrust fine of $5.06 billion on Monday, a decision that could loosen the company's grip on its biggest growth engine: mobile phones. From a report:The European Commission ordered Google to end the illegal conduct within 90 days or face additional penalties of up to 5 percent of parent Alphabet's average daily worldwide turnover. The EU enforcer also dismissed Google's arguments citing Apple as a competitor to Android devices, saying the iPhone maker does not sufficiently constrain Google because of its higher prices and switching costs for users. The European Commission finding is the most consequential decision made in its eight-year antitrust battle with Google. The fine significantly outstrips the $2.8B charge Brussels imposed on the company last year for favoring its own site in comparison shopping searches. The decision takes aim at a core part of Google's business strategy over the past decade, outlawing restrictions on its Android operating system that allegedly entrenched Google's dominance in online search at a time when consumers were moving from desktop to mobile devices. Android is the operating system used in more than 80 per cent of the world's smartphones and is vital to the group's future revenues as more users rely on mobile gadgets for search services. Google has denied wrongdoing.
The European Commission took issues with the following practices: In particular, Google:
1. has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);
2. made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices;
and 3. has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks"). Update: Google has announced that it would be appealing against the record fine. In a statement, the company said, "Android has created more choice for everyone, not less. A vibrant ecosystem, rapid innovation and lower prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition. We will appeal the Commission's decision."
Update 2: In a blog post, Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, said, the European Commission's decision ignores and misses several facts. He wrote: Today, the European Commission issued a competition decision against Android, and its business model. The decision ignores the fact that Android phones compete with iOS phones, something that 89 percent of respondents to the Commission's own market survey confirmed. It also misses just how much choice Android provides to thousands of phone makers and mobile network operators who build and sell Android devices; to millions of app developers around the world who have built their businesses with Android; and billions of consumers who can now afford and use cutting-edge Android smartphones. Today, because of Android, there are more than 24,000 devices, at every price point, from more than 1,300 different brands, including Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Polish, Romanian, Spanish and Swedish phone makers.
[...] The free distribution of the Android platform, and of Google's suite of applications, is not only efficient for phone makers and operators -- it's of huge benefit for developers and consumers. If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn't include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem. So far, the Android business model has meant that we haven't had to charge phone makers for our technology, or depend on a tightly controlled distribution model. [...] Rapid innovation, wide choice, and falling prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition and Android has enabled all of them. Today's decision rejects the business model that supports Android, which has created more choice for everyone, not less. We intend to appeal. Update 3: The French government said on Wednesday that it welcomes the record fine imposed on Google by European Union regulators, with a government spokesman describing it as an "excellent decision."
A number of companies, and startups that compete with Google have weighed in on the development. Open Markets Institute Executive Director Barry Lynn, said, "We hope U.S. enforcers of competition law will learn from and follow this example in both of these cases." Consumer Watchdog Director John Simpson, said, "The U.S. Federal Trade Commission or Department of Justice should also act to end Google's monopolistic abuses, instead of letting the Europeans be the only cop on the antitrust beat." Yelp SVP Public Policy Luther Lowe, said, "The European Commission's ruling of additional illegal conduct by Google on smartphones is another important step in restoring competition, innovation and consumer welfare in the digital economy; the EU must ensure complete compliance from a recalcitrant Google and the U.S. must take action to provide American consumers with similar protections." The European Commission took issues with the following practices: In particular, Google:
1. has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);
2. made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices;
and 3. has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks"). Update: Google has announced that it would be appealing against the record fine. In a statement, the company said, "Android has created more choice for everyone, not less. A vibrant ecosystem, rapid innovation and lower prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition. We will appeal the Commission's decision."
Update 2: In a blog post, Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, said, the European Commission's decision ignores and misses several facts. He wrote: Today, the European Commission issued a competition decision against Android, and its business model. The decision ignores the fact that Android phones compete with iOS phones, something that 89 percent of respondents to the Commission's own market survey confirmed. It also misses just how much choice Android provides to thousands of phone makers and mobile network operators who build and sell Android devices; to millions of app developers around the world who have built their businesses with Android; and billions of consumers who can now afford and use cutting-edge Android smartphones. Today, because of Android, there are more than 24,000 devices, at every price point, from more than 1,300 different brands, including Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Polish, Romanian, Spanish and Swedish phone makers.
[...] The free distribution of the Android platform, and of Google's suite of applications, is not only efficient for phone makers and operators -- it's of huge benefit for developers and consumers. If phone makers and mobile network operators couldn't include our apps on their wide range of devices, it would upset the balance of the Android ecosystem. So far, the Android business model has meant that we haven't had to charge phone makers for our technology, or depend on a tightly controlled distribution model. [...] Rapid innovation, wide choice, and falling prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition and Android has enabled all of them. Today's decision rejects the business model that supports Android, which has created more choice for everyone, not less. We intend to appeal. Update 3: The French government said on Wednesday that it welcomes the record fine imposed on Google by European Union regulators, with a government spokesman describing it as an "excellent decision."
Elevation Partners' Roger McNamee, said, Commissioner Vestager's ruling today not only enhances competition and investment opportunities in Europe, but it will have a cascading effect into U.S. markets, where antitrust enforcers have so far failed to take meaningful action." Privacy startup Disconnect CEO Casey Oppenheim, said, "Other players in the digital ecosystem may finally be able to fairly compete with Google, giving meaningful choice to consumers."
New Improved Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a clearer summary of what Google have been up to as reported by The Guardian [theguardian.com].
EU Competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager says:
Google required manufacturers to pre-install the Google search and browser apps on Android phones, otherwise they wouldnâ(TM)t be allowed to use Google Play (its app service).
Google paid manufacturers and network operators to make sure that only the Google search app was installed on devices.
Google has restricted the development of competing mobile phone operating systems, which could have provided a platform for rival search engines.
Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement its dominance as a search engine.
These practices have denied rivals a chance to innovate and to compete on the merits.
They have denied European consumers the benefit of effective competition in the very important mobile sphere.
And this is illegal under EU antitrust rules.
Todayâ(TM)s ruling states:
Google has prevented device manufacturers from using any alternative version of Android that was not approved by Google (Android forks).
In order to be able to pre-install on their devices Googleâ(TM)s proprietary apps, including the Play Store and Google Search, manufacturers had to commit not to develop or sell even a single device running on an Android fork.
The Commission found that this conduct was abusive as of 2011, which is the date Google became dominant in the market for app stores for the Android mobile operating system.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow what a déja-vue! For those of you who are too young to remember: MS did exactly the same in the 1990s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Google's supposed anti competition tactics
So why can't I have access to the Google Play store without Google's search bar? Don't you think that's Google flexing their Android market dominance to keep their search dominance?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a clearer summary of what Google have been up to as reported by The Guardian [theguardian.com].
EU Competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager says:
Google required manufacturers to pre-install the Google search and browser apps on Android phones, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to use Google Play (its app service).
We need the browser and search engine for guaranteed compatibility with the app store; it is the only way to give the user a consistent experience.
Google paid manufacturers and network operators to make sure that only the Google search app was installed on devices.
Giving marketing dollars for co-branded advertising is an old and well accepted practice across the world. Just look at Intel!
Google has restricted the development of competing mobile phone operating systems, which could have provided a platform for rival search engines.
Restricted? Positive steps to better compete in a crowded marketplace is now illegal?
Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement its dominance as a search engine.
We provide users with a consistent predictable experience on devices issued by HUNDREDS of different providers. Tight integration is a simple necessity
Re: New Improved Summary (Score:3, Informative)
From Slashdot's summary (which has been edited since it was first posted):
"The European Commission ordered Google to end the illegal conduct within 90 days or face additional penalties of up to 5 percent of parent Alphabet's average daily worldwide turnover. "
From the Guardian link:
"Vestager says that the fine will be returned to EU member states, based on how much each country pays into the EU budget."
Re: (Score:2)
From the Guardian link:
"Vestager says that the fine will be returned to EU member states, based on how much each country pays into the EU budget."
So it is in the EU member states best interest that Google continue their present practices, and be fined more money.
Re:New Improved Summary (Score:5, Informative)
They were told it was a problem but decided to continue doing it anyway. Plus the law is quite clear, and doesn't only start applying once someone points out you are violating it.
The EU will use the money for a variety of things that help affected companies indirectly.
Re: (Score:2)
They were told it was a problem but decided to continue doing it anyway. Plus the law is quite clear, and doesn't only start applying once someone points out you are violating it.
The EU will use the money for a variety of things that help affected companies indirectly.
I dunno, seems like the smartest thing to do would be to squeeze Google for as much money as long as possible. You would want to take them just to the point where they consider puling out, but no further.
If this was not a pure and simple money grab, the EU would simply start a China style blocking of these internet companies like Google that are doing so much damage to the EU. But they really just want what they believe is their cut of the pie.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't the united states, the EU doesn't do money grabs.
Re: (Score:3)
The fine isn't just for damage done, which is hard to calculate. It's to deter people from doing this, and from Google deciding to simply eat the fine.
Re: (Score:2)
It may seem odd, but over here in the EU, our goal is actually for you to heed the law rather than ensuring it's impossible so we can squeeze as much as we can out of you. But I guess the old German saying is true, the knave thinks as he is.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember how much Microsoft dragged their feet after the US finding? The fine makes a material impact to the business, and if the company only pays lip service to the ruling, they can continue paying a materially damaging sum.
Is it a money grab? Yes, of course. Is it an effective remedy and deterrent? Time will tell.
Re: (Score:2)
It fails as a money grab because for this the fine is WAY too high. 5 billions isn't something that even Google could consider "cost of doing business".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:New Improved Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
So why isn't the response "fix these abusive practices, or be denied access to our market" rather than "give us a bunch of money".
1) It's a lot harder to justify a ban than a fine.
2) A fine doesn't put people out of work. In fact, government spending the money may employ people.
It's actually better for everyone, because the fines will induce Google to change their behavior (since they threaten additional fines, here) without causing people to lose their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the law already states this and Google didn't give a shit. Does your country tell you to please stop breaking into homes or does it jail you when you get caught doing so?
Re: (Score:2)
So ... what was the EU supposed to do, maybe you could tell us. There is a company that pretty much ignores your laws. What do you do?
Re: (Score:3)
That makes matters even worse. You do know that cellphones are hardly a market with a few thousands manufacturers, right? Let's ponder for a moment what happens with the phone market if you subtract Android.
interesting (Score:3)
3. has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
I'll be interested to see how this affects Google's newest decision to "disallow" google apps from being installed on custom ROMs without jumping through hoops, or, more boradly, the blocks which have been in place for ages preventing certain apps (like Netflix) being installed on unapproved devices.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be interested to see how this affects Google's newest decision to "disallow" google apps from being installed on custom ROMs without jumping through hoops
It won't affect that at all, because this is about Google bundling. This is about Google forcing people to use their software, not about forcing Google to let other people to use their software. It's the opposite thing.
or, more boradly, the blocks which have been in place for ages preventing certain apps (like Netflix) being installed on unapproved devices.
It will affect that even less; that has to do with licensing and DRM.
they never learn (Score:3)
I have such a Deja Vu with respects to this case and the Microsoft anti-trust case. There it was browser, here it is search, but the methods are so similar.
Until today I thought Google might be of a different breed than Microsoft. I stand corrected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until today? This was their whole purpose for creating Android-- to dominate mobile search. Some of their listed policies do make me feel like they are just microsoft 2.0 or something, but it is just confirmation.
Why am I having Deja Vu? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, could it be (drumroll) having OEM computer manufacturers install Internet Explorer by default without a way to effectively remove it?
That's not even the problem. The USER can change the device's search engine easily enough. However, Google was prohibiting vendors from shipping any devices with e.g. CyanogenMod or AOSP if they also wanted to ship any devices with full corporate Android and the Play Store/Services. That's not like bundling IE, that's like when Microsoft offered OEMs a lower price for bundled Windows if they promised not to ship any machines with any other OS on them — or in some cases, even without an OS. It was thus
Alternatives to Google. (Score:3, Interesting)
https://restoreprivacy.com/goo... [restoreprivacy.com]
I've always felt it unethical to use the products of a company that makes money from advertising https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] but this finding has really woken me up - this kind of behavior is why I started to boycott Microsoft decades ago
Replacing GMail is gonna be a hassle and take a long time because I'm not using an independent domain. Weaning myself off YouTube is gonna super difficult.
Re:Alternatives to Google. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've always felt it unethical to use the products of a company that makes money from advertising
The company that owns Slashdot makes money from advertising. Why are you using Slashdot?
Unfortunately for your principle, all of the news outlets linked by the summary are funded by advertising, as are all search engines you might use to find information about the article, and nearly all blogs you might read about it on. For that matter, nearly all browsers you might use to read it with are primarily ad-funded, including Firefox.
Why does the advertising model dominate in tech? For the same reason it's been the dominant funding mechanism for TV, radio and newspapers, for centuries: because it is by far the lowest-friction way to monetize the attention of a mass audience. And, of course, monetization is necessary because people need to eat. Perhaps we'll move to a post-scarcity economy which decouples work from survival and then you'll be able to find products that are created without need for compensation. Until then, advertising provides a way for people to make a living by producing stuff that's free for everyone, and that's a good thing.
While you're certainly welcome to avoid any company or products you like, I think your quest to avoid advertising-supported products is both doomed to failure, and fundamentally dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I've always felt it unethical to use the products of a company that makes money from advertising
Because Google makes money from advertising, it doesn’t have to charge its search users. Watching advertising, or giving up demographic information, is your trade for free stuff, just as TV was in the days of broadcasting.
Re: (Score:3)
https://restoreprivacy.com/goo [restoreprivacy.com]...
What a bunch of hypocrites. Restore privacy site uses third party tracking bugs with data sent to innocraft.cloud
Reminiscent of all those GDPR sites containing Google and Facebook trackers with no warning or consent.
My view as a hardware developer (Score:3, Informative)
Spyware phone (Score:2)
I just want a phone I can use, not one that uses me.
Apple only exists because... (Score:2)
Google and Microsoft need to insist that they aren't monopolies.
Re: What if.. (Score:5, Informative)
Most of Google's cash is in Ireland. The repoman will simply force the bank to hand over the money.
Re: What if.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that would wipe out Irelands position as european tech darling ireland probably wouldn't allow it or would procrastinate long enough for google to withdraw the funds.
Re: (Score:2)
THAT in turn would make Ireland an accomplice and the EU would squeeze the Irish dry. I kinda doubt they love Google enough to foot their bill.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
More than the average US state, they are. But you can't have your cake and eat it, too, either you're a union or you go solo. Or you can of course do what Poland, Hungary and some others try now, leech off the EU when there's grants to be had but when it's time to stand together during a problem, it's everyone for himself.
Re: What if.. (Score:4, Interesting)
If only the problem had anything to do with Hungary, Poland or another East European country...
One EU leader took action that created the problem for all and then asks to stand united? A leader of the richest EU country no less...
Not only East Europe does not have the money to accomodate economy emigrants but they don't want to stay in our country cause noone gets money for not working, including the natives.
And finally, east Europe is much wiser when it comes to Marxist bullshit masquerading as 'compassion' and 'equity'.
We remember the Gulags my friend...and the 'class enemy' and the '5 minutes of hate' and so much more...
Western political discourse in the last decade is taken from 'the manual of the agitprop party worker'. It's scary as hell!
Re: (Score:3)
You remember a fictional invention from 1984?
Re: (Score:2)
Google has subsidies in most (all?) EU countries so legal measures can be taken against them, up to and including sending the bailiffs in.
Google makes enough money in the EU to make paying the fine preferable to withdrawing from the market.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously, if they refuse, the EU will just let this slide and give them a slap on the wrist and tell Google to never ever do something like that again... ...the same that happens with people that refuse to pay fines or taxes.
Re:What if.. (Score:4, Funny)
So what happens if google just refuses to pay?
Then the EU will sortie its massive military forces to...
Oops - those forces that happen to be largely American.
Re:What if.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What if.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sucks to be on the receiving end, no?
Re: (Score:3)
Like ensuring people follow laws? How horrible of them. Imagine what would happen in a world where corporations are held to the same legal standard as people. It would be madness!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What if.. (Score:3)
And this pipeline is an old project, from a time where the US was also in good terms with Russia. And I am not aware of Russia meddling much with German affairs.
Also Russian has was already exported to Germany during the cold war, it's nothing new. That income is also something that Russia needs, stopping it from too much aggression. Trade relations to ensure peace were
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Failing? The rest of the planet wishes they'd fail like us.
Re:Never confuse stupidity with malice (Score:5, Informative)
I'm so tired of this anti-EU bullshit. You really need to find a new scapegoat for the failure of your local politicians.
In order for the EU to remove power from any national government, besaid national government would first have to agree with this or, second, there needs to be an unanimous vote by all member states to remove that power.
Any power that is currently not in the hands of national governments and can be overruled by directives is not in their hands because all governments of all member states previously voted to take away that power and give it to the EU to the mutual benefit of all member states. What's even worse about posts like yours is that the people who criticize the EU now for not being democratic enough are exactly the same people who in the past ensured that the EU has this structure, most notably the UK, whose main goal has always been to make the European Parliament as weak as possible, prevent a EU wide defence structure, not having a EU president, etc. The European Parliament is relatively powerless and commissioners appointed by the governments of member states (and voted for by European Parliament, which directly represents all EU citizens) have a relatively high amount of power because member countries wanted to make sure that the European Parliament has less to say than national parliaments.
And what's bizarre about complaining about the monopoly of search engines so late? By design, the commissions mostly become active in such matters after the complaints have reached national level and the whole process takes time.
In a nutshell, quit those silly complaints about the EU. Rather complain about the local politicians like Margaret Thatcher who designed it that way and opt for local politicians that want to give the EU Parliament more power. Remember, the EU parliament is directly voted for by the citizens of the member states.
Re: (Score:2)
As the UK is discovering the idea of being "free" at all costs is pretty dumb. If you want to be prosperous, if you want to trade, you are going to have to agree common rules. Some you might not like.
No county is an economic island, even the ones that are physical islands. And the UK isn't even that.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess most countries would prefer a trading system where their concerns and goals actually matter.
Re:Never confuse stupidity with malice (Score:4, Informative)
This is not a question of technology, and the EU has a long history of protecting consumers. The last sentence shows you don't understand how the EU works, which makes your desire to criticise it baffling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Never confuse stupidity with malice (Score:5, Informative)
Your democratically elected government at the time made this choice, as was the choice of your democratically elected government whether to leave the EU and/or whether there should have been a referendum about it or not.
In your case the choice to join the Maastricht Treaty without a referendum was made by the conservative government of Sir John Major, which also negotiated important aspects of the treaty for the UK.
You know, it's not as if this information is kind of secret, you can look it up yourself next time.
Re: (Score:3)
Except you prize clown - signing maastricht was NOT in the conservative party manifesto so the people had no idea this was going to happen if they voted for them.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Google are where they are because they've built a solid reputation with consumers, not because they did something shady.
... except when they did, and eventually the case was raised within EU, and carefully examined, and yes, found to be shady, and a fine was decided on.
It's not against the law to run a good business and end up in a monopoly situation. But monopolies are generally not a good thing because they come with a special set of powers. So we have a special set of rules governing them. If you run a monopoly and exploit certain of these powers, then you may end up facing the consequences.
There's nothing new in this.
Re: I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
It is simple. Google has a near monopoly on smart phone OS and search. Apple does not. iOS has a world wide share of like 20%.
So, yes, you can use Android, but not the Google PlayStore without also installing all of Google's mandatory apps and services and make them defaults. Therein lies the problem. Google is leveraging its app store to force you to use Chrome and its search functions. This is what the EU has issue with, and a good thing too or we'd all be using Internet Explorer now.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple could care less about "search", because Apple has a stranglehold on their app store and gets 30% OF EVERYTHING GOING THROUGH IT. And therein lies that problem. That's why Apple and book publishers got slapped with monopoly fines for rigging book prices against Amazon.
Apparently the lesson here for Google is to close up Android, cut off all the other manufacturers and only allow their own handsets with their own software on it, force all money transactions to go through Google Play and take a nice cu
Re: I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Same with Safari and some other apps on iOS. I would like to have te EU make Apple change iOS so that I can choose another app as the standard, like on a desktop OS.
Re: (Score:2)
This was the same problem with Microsoft and Internet Explorer. Google wouldn't exists without that previous decision.
WTF are you talking about? The EU's original case against Microsoft wasn't about Internet Explorer, it was about Windows Media Player [wikipedia.org]. The EU didn't open a case against MS concerning IE until 2009. Google was founded in 1998 and by 2003 they were the dominant search engine. So how did the EU suing Microsoft over the bundling of IE in 2009 make it so "Google wouldn't exists" if it didn't happen?
Re: (Score:2)
...and increasingly frequently the need to root the phone (voiding warranty) to access these functionalities.
20 years ago, MSIE wasn't the only browser available. People could always install Opera.
Re: I don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
No, you can't. The spyware they put in isn't optional -- because it's not opt-in on the device, it's done via the services you use with Android. Also, you seem to be missing the point where the previous CEO of Google said his job "was to get right up to the creepy line, but not to cross it". http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-schmidt-googles-policy-is-to-get-right-up-to-the-creepy-line-and-not-cross-it-2010-10?IR=T
Apple isn't a saint, but Google is a piece of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
The fine is not about restrictions to the end user, it is about Google leveraging its dominance to enforce anti-competitive practices. From a Register article about the fine:
"Android is locked down in a Google-controlled ecosystem," said Vestager. She said manufacturers were interested in licensing Amazon's FireOS Android. But by making even one FireOS phone, the OEM would have lost the ability to include Google Play Store on its other devices.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/... [theregister.co.uk]
I don't know about the Apple qu
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's kinda hard to establish a new service, even a better one, if there is already one so entrenched and fortified that it's near impossible to generate the user base to make it viable. In other words, to see why your diatribe fails, replace "Google" with "Comcast".
Re: (Score:2)
The counter argument relies on a finite market. Nothing else. Your "blocking" infrastructure is comparable to some "blocking" patents, in the end, there's a way around either. But in both markets you are dealing with systems that require heavy initial investments with comparably low running and per-unit cost. And the established competitor has already paid (and more likely than not recovered) that huge initial cost, meaning that he can more easily handle lowering his prices to muscle you out of the market.
Re: (Score:3)
How many nanoseconds do you think it would take until Steam jumps onto those phone manufacturers that are left "in the rain" if they can't license the Play Store anymore? I wouldn't be surprised if Steam already has something like a Play Store substitute ready to go.
I kinda doubt Google would want to give them the chance to create a beachhead here.
Re: (Score:2)
Item 3 especially is monopolistic, anti-competitive behavior when you have an exceedingly dominant position in the market.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Google aren't merely offering their services, they are attaching exactly the same strings that Microsoft used to attach. Microsoft used to say: if you want to ship Windows, you may only ship Windows on all of the PCs you sell. If you ship one with OS/2 or Linux on, then the deal is off.
Google are doing the same thing. If you want to ship phones with Android and Google Play (which is increasingly necessary for many apps to just work), then *all* your phones must ship with this, and none with a competitive operating system or environment.
This is the monopoly abuse they are being punished for. They are not being punished for making good apps, they are being punished for using their dominant position (which on the lower end is 100% dominance) to prevent competition from even getting going.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is incorrect. Google is saying that if you want to sell Android phones, they must come with the Google apps as well. They do not say that companies can not sell products with another operating system on them, which WOULD be against the laws in most countries. The real key is that many features in Android itself are tied back into Google Services. You cut that out, and many things just won't work. People saying that Android is horrible and Google is horrible because their no-name phone that ha
Re:Welcome to the EU (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes - people misunderstanding what the EU is and what it is doing.
Like you seem to be doing.
Re: I would normally care (Score:2, Funny)
Fired? More like basement dude who's never had a job.
Re:Oh no... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you didn't manage to read even the summary? The $5 billion is just the start; [...] end the illegal conduct within 90 days or face additional penalties of up to 5 percent of parent Alphabetâ(TM)s average daily worldwide turnover. Note that that's turnover, not profit, and moreover it's worldwide turnover, not EU turnover. Even Google would feel that.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta keep those lush social programs going while minimizing the threat of a taxpayer revolt.
Re: (Score:3)
This raises a question for me - who gets the payment, and what do they do with it? Would the fine actually be paid to the collective EU government, and what would they use it for?
Re: Oh no... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is a way to force American companies who do business in EU to follow EU law. Unlike USA, where companies get a slap on the wrist for any wrongdoings and happily continue breaking the law, EU can actually apply leverage that works.
They don't have to pay, and they don't have to comply. They can just pack up and leave the EU market forever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
EU Law....you assume that any laws were actually broken, rather than just throwing a fine out there to bring in money to the EU when no companies have been hurt. Have they thrown fines at Apple for not allowing other browsers to be put on iPhones sold in the EU market? How about email apps? Nope, they don't go after Apple, which is even worse about the rules about what goes on the iPhone.
Basic concept, third party phone makers might put malware in the custom apps they provide with the phone. You wa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Oh no... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, if what you want is to eliminate tracking from phones in the EU, you could pass laws that, y'know, eliminate tracking. I imagine Google - and others - could still make bundles without tracking individual users, but if they can make more with tracking, they're gonna do it.
Meanwhile, nobody seemed to care about Google search and gmail being included in Android phones till they got too popular - and presumably, competitors started bribing politicians. That doesn't mean the behavior shouldn't be stopped, but imposing a huge fine over past behavior that only crossed the line at some undetermined point in the past seems draconian. If you can't act soon enough to prevent the harm, you can't (well, I guess maybe you can), punish past legal behavior for retroactively becoming illegal. That's not quite fair.
When they went after Microsoft, they first got a consent decree ("we won't do that any more") and then fined them for violating it. Was such an agreement made - and violated - in Google's case with Android?
And in Microsoft's case, the remedy was to force them to allow a choice of browsers. Android already does that. And a choice of launchers (with or without the Google search widget). What's missing here? Only the option for OEM's to accept payments from Microsoft to build phones with Bing instead of Google?
Re: (Score:3)
Because Apple, as all the Android fans on /. are quick to point out, is non-dominant also-ran in the phone market. Just going by sales numbers alone, there is no anti-trust case to be made against Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird. Slashdot ate my link tag. That's never happened before. Here's my [citation needed]: https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple, as all the Android fans on /. are quick to point out, is non-dominant also-ran in the phone market. Just going by sales numbers alone, there is no anti-trust case to be made against Apple.
Kinda weird then, that the Android fans spend their time freaking out and going crazy about that also-ran company.
To add insult to injury for those poor iPhone users, Androoid has the best malware, both pre-installed and from the Google play store.
But seriously, I envision that Android fans also drive Toyota Corollas, after all they are the most popular car in the world. Just like their Android phones.
Re: (Score:3)
A reason could be that Apple has a market share of about 20% and Android one of about 80%.
In other words, I doubt the EU would go after Google if Android didn't represent 4/5 of the total market. You might have noticed that Microsoft was under fire for its position in the Desktop OS and Browser market, but nobody talked about their (not in any way different) practices in the mobile branch.
You might see a pattern.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple won't be next because they're a small player with their 20% market share compared to Android.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A 20% market share of 100% Apple manufactured phones vs 80% market share for Android spread across dozens of manufacturers, none of which can claim 20% of the market or anything close to Apple's profits. You're comparing Apples to Oreos and coming up with D'oh.
Apple is the sole provider of the operating system for Apple phones. Apple does not allow other people to manufacture iPhones, does not allow other App stores, does not allow other web browsers (They still have to use Safari's engine, so they're mo
Re: (Score:3)
I have this hypothesis that whenever someone feels the urge to declare what he has to say as "facts", it's anything but facts.
Thanks for supporting my hypothesis.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a quite similar hypothesis concerning the use of the word "proof"...
Re:Blazing fast EU! (Score:4, Insightful)
How many years did the US government take again to 'punish' MS for its misuse of its monopoly? 15? And it was a punishment that benefited MS in the long run! No wonder the monkey danced.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The EU has no tech industry ... because EU businesses have to follow EU laws. I don't think this is a good thing. But.
US companies can't just side-step local laws by claiming they are based outside the EU. They have got away with it for several years, and the EU is only now finally responsing.
Follow the law, or stop doing business with the EU. Your choice.
Re:Is this for real? (Score:5, Informative)
The issue is not having the best, most popular product. It's forced bundling and cross-promotion.
With Android you need to agree to make Google the default and only search engine on the phone if you want the Play Store. Since consumers want the play store manufacturers can't supply any other search engines. Amazon tried its own app store but outside its own devices it mostly failed, as did most Amazon devices except their cheap tablets.
Chinese manufacturers can't ship Play or Google search anyway because they are blocked in China. Their international models have them though.
Re: (Score:2)
I regularly try other search engines and none has come close to Google's breadth and coverage by a very long shot.
In short, this fine is just absurd and I'm not sure what is that the EU really wants from Google. Money?
They want to fix your first assertion. This is similar to the anti-trust case against Microsoft bundling internet explorer in Windows. It's not about Android OS competition. It's about search.
Re: (Score:2)
The objection is about forcing the install of Google Search in Android phones as a condition for being able to use Google Play (the app store) NOT about Google Search being available or installed by default in Android phones or Google being dominant in the search market.
The objections about the forks thing is that Google forbids brands who want to sell official (with Play store and other Google apps and services) Android devices to also sell devices with an And
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When Apple gets 80% market share in, well, anything, this might actually matter.
Moreover, I'll use all faith I have left in humanity.
Re: (Score:3)
It is Microsofty, I remember the same thing with IE and Monopoly complaints, but this is different: not too long ago, I read here something about Google Maps possibly charging, Slashdotters were talking about the other free maps solutions they would jump to.
You have a situation where people who put together products of great value must give them away "free" or not compete, which is to say they must sell your private data clandestinely, consumers demand it. Yet everyone who really understands the costs of th
Re:Which is the worse example (Score:5, Interesting)
What cheek, to actually want to enforce a law. Against a corporation, no less.