Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0%2F7ca69056-0284-11e6-af1d-c47326021344.html

by Jerry2 • 10 years ago

37 53 10 years ago

levemi2• 10 years ago

I don't understand why Google gets attacked when at least you can install competing services and you can't on iOS. Why does iOS get a pass? If Google built the hardware itself it could lock it down all it wants? That's the reason? You can get Firefox on Android and not on iOS. You can replace almost anything, and on iOS you can't. You can disable many of the default apps on Android, I don't know if you can on iOS.

jodrellblank• 10 years ago

You can't install competing services on iOS? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-maps/id585027354?mt=8

You can't get FireFox on iOS? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/firefox-web-browser/id989804...

levemi2• 10 years ago

That's not Firefox proper, that's a webview. Nobody can build an alternative browser for iOS. As for an example of competing services that can't be installed on iOS, look to f.lux.

ChrisClark• 10 years ago

No, you can't get Firefox on iOS. You can sync bookmarks with Firefox and get a Firefox-style border around Webkit though. :(

moreira• 10 years ago

The problem, I believe, is the market share. If your OS is only on 3 or even 4 out of 10 phones, then you're not in a dominant position, and whatever you do, you're not abusing your market power, which is what antitrust is all about.

So Apple and their OSs will always be safe from this kind of thing because they're simply not the biggest player when it comes to market share.

cageface3• 10 years ago

So why is it that when people want to paint Apple in a positive light they dismiss market share and point to profits? If Apple pulling in 90% of the profits in the industry is what counts when evaluating the relative strengths of both platforms then why doesn't it matter when considering abuses of market position?

I think it's pretty clear that despite selling a minority of devices Apple has at least as much power to drive the overall direction of the market as Google.

piyush_soni• 10 years ago

I don't understand that law as well. So, you start being good, keep 'mostly' doing good and grow, and at one point, what has been good suddenly becomes bad just because you have grown more than anybody else?

digi_owl2• 10 years ago

Because antitrust is about leverage. Using your position in one market to get an advantage in another. Apple is the only provider of hardware running iOS, so leverage do not play a part there.

gefh• 10 years ago

Not so long ago, physical phones and software markets were separate. Apple did a fine job muscling in its app store by leveraging the early dominance of its phone hardware.

ocdtrekkie5• 10 years ago

A few of the responses to your comments have covered a lot, but they miss the primary issue: Apple only controls itself. Through the Android MADA, a confidential contract Google forces OEMs to sign in exchange for the Play Store, Google basically de facto controls the majority of the mobile industry. Google has full veto power over all of their Android-based device and software releases.

Google has a ridiculous amount of power, and if they say jump, everyone in the industry has to ask how high. They've left a bunch of "but technically" loopholes to excuse themselves, but given that it's impossible to sell a SUCCESSFUL Android smartphone without signing their contract, those loopholes don't stand up in court.

bad_user6• 10 years ago

The existence of Android, a platform for Google to push their apps and services, has been clear from the start, along with the terms by which a phone maker is able to distribute Google Play.

Google has a ridiculous amount of power, and if they say jump, everyone in the industry has to ask how high

That's not an anti-trust violation. I hope they come up with something much better than that.

glenndebacker2• 10 years ago

It is quite simple really, Apple has in no way the market share that a Google has. The impact of their anti-competitive decisions are vairy low.

The problem is also not having big marketshare but having it AND doing things that may be anti-competitive. European companies have also brought before court for the same reasons.

Btw Apple had also been brought to court for not applying European laws especially regarding warranty's which they lost.

bad_user6• 10 years ago

You're trying to make some sense of this, but no, there is no sense and it isn't simple either.

For one because Google's Android does not qualify as a monopoly and the mere existence of Apple's iOS which has 20% of the European market is testament to that. But also because having a monopoly isn't illegal and I'm quite curious what anti-trust charges they are going to bring, because as the parent says, Android has been the most flexible mainstream mobile OS, more than iOS or Windows Phone. Android is the only one on top of which Firefox was possible, the only one admitting third-party installation sources and app stores and the only one that can have a CyanogenMod. Android is actually the only one that can be forked and Amazon has successfully forked Android.

And the reason for why it doesn't make sense is because Google charges no licence money for Android and they've been quite forthcoming about the reason why Android exists, right from the start, its existence being all about Google having a mobile platform to distribute their apps and services. Phone makers don't even have to agree to this, though no Google agreement means no Google Play, terms that again, have been there from the start. And in fact Apple and Microsoft have both used their existing position in desktop operating systems, an easily provable oligarchy, to push their mobile OSs and lock users in.

European companies have also brought before court for the same reasons

Oh, come on, you know that ain't true. They are targeting Google specifically because they don't want to share their Search & News revenue with a dying mass-media industry. And I'm saying this as an European.

EGreg2• 10 years ago

Wait so the EU can have a $7B windfall from a guilty verdict yet they will remain impartial? Nice!

fabulist3• 10 years ago

The judges shouldn't be seeing a penny more or less no matter the verdict. If they're bribed that is another matter.

EGreg2• 10 years ago

But don't the judges work for the EU?

personjerry• 10 years ago

Judges may think of their families, communities, and countries; in something of this scale it would be hard to be impartial.

hartpuff• 10 years ago

If you seriously believe in such endemic corruption, you could equally fantasise that Google has enough money to buy a not-guilty verdict, yet the EU will remain impartial?

ocdtrekkie5• 10 years ago

In fact, in the US, Google HAS bought a non-guilty verdict. The US counterpart of Ms. Vestager is the commissioner of the FTC. For two years, that person was a paid Google spokesperson, and the case against Google that had been building here in the US was found by their staff to have merit, yet quietly buried. As soon as their paid shill stepped down last year, the investigation was reopened.

(Sources can be provided. If you doubt any claim here, please ask!)

Oletros2• 10 years ago

Are you suggesting that all the rulings from the EU Commission are ilegal and motivated by the fines they impose?

ksdale• 10 years ago

To add a little context based on an antitrust course taken in a U.S. law school a few years ago, European antitrust law is quite different from American antitrust law so American ideas about market share and consumer choice may not be applicable.

In the U.S. the primary focus of antitrust enforcement is on the consumer, so if the consumer is getting a solid product for "free" and has lots of other options, there is no chance of an antitrust action happening.

From what I remember, European antitrust enforcement also takes the well-being of competitors into account, so if one company has a large market share and enough pricing power to make it difficult for competitors to survive, the authorities may bring legal action, based on the theory that it's better for society to have more different businesses offering choice and employing people.

ocdtrekkie5• 10 years ago

I don't think this is actually all that different. Both jurisdictions recognize that competition is preferable. Minor differences in why they focus on that, is probably not all that relevant. Making it impossible for competitors to function in the US is problematic as well, because it leads to a lack of consumer choice. (Just because Google is free, doesn't mean all of us want it.)

Furthermore, the EU has demonstrated overall a stronger focus, I think, on the individual over corporate interests. Seen also in their handling of privacy, where they're willing to place large burdens on corporations in order to adequately protect their citizens' fundamental rights.

bad_user6• 10 years ago

abusing a dominant position in mobile operating systems to pre-install its own applications and services in smartphones

So Google made Android specifically for distributing their apps and services and everybody knew this and agreed with it. It wasn't even in fine print, it was written all over it. Everybody knew what they were getting into. I don't understand how can they abuse their "position in mobile operating systems" to pre-install their apps when that has been the only reason Android exists.

Is that the sound of incompetence or that of malevolence? Are they aiming for extortion? Is that it?

pyrale3• 10 years ago

Arguing that you broke the law in a very deliberate and public way doesn't sound like a very good defense. Neither does accusing the state attorneys of being malevolent, incompetents or crooks.

bad_user6• 10 years ago

Building a product whose price tag, contract and purpose has been clear from day one and that had organic growth can't be against the law. The first Android phone in the world, with version 1.0, the HTC Dream released in 2008, was delivered with Google's apps, including Search, Gmail, Maps, YouTube, Talk, Contacts, Calendar and Android Market (now Google Play). And from a timid version 1 to reach a dominant market position, that's not breaking the law either. Unless we live in some twisted parallel universe.

And yes, I am accusing the state attorneys of being either malevolent, incompetent or crooks, especially since they are doing it on (my) taxpayer's money.

iam-TJ2• 10 years ago

I suspect one part of the rationale behind this is that as Android has gained dominance Google has moved some core API functions out of the generic AOSP source-code (which everyone can use) and into the Google Play services which require the device manufacturer to sign a contract for, which apparently also includes terms that have - at least in the past as I understand it - required pre-installation (possibly in prominent positions) of Google applications.

On that basis there is a strong correlation with the anti-trust convictions of Microsoft over bundling Internet Explorer into the Windows OS which effectively destroyed the paid-application model for web browsers (Netscape - which had 90% market share - could no longer succeed whilst charging ~US$20 (UK£15) and (AOL/Netscape) transferred the code to the Mozilla Foundation).

apologies for glossing over fine-detail but I ran out of my daily parenthesis allowance.

bad_user6• 10 years ago

I know that contractual conditions for Google Play aren't so easy on phone makers, but then again phone makers are free to build their own marketplace and ecosystem. I know at least Samsung tried it, their Galaxy phones shipping with a parallel marketplace, in addition with Google Play. Didn't work out.

I don't know specifics of things moved out of AOSP. If that's true, then there's some logic to it. But I did use CianogenMod without Google Play on it. It's still usable. Though certain things like Android's push notification system cannot happen without Google's infrastructure and that can't simply be free, even if the integration would be in AOSP. There might be truth to this, not saying otherwise.

On Microsoft, I blame them for many things, like for killing BeOS or for fueling SCO's lawsuit against Linux or now for racketeering in the mobile industry, but bringing anti-trust charges because of Internet Explorer and splitting them up (as was the plan) would have been a terrible and unjust ruling. Netscape killed themselves and sorry to say it, but Internet Explorer was not only free and bundled, but technically superior. And that was fine IMHO, because in its place Mozilla was born and the rest is history. Regardless, compare Microsoft of the nineties to what Apple is doing now with iOS. Makes Microsoft of the nineties look quite open by comparison, doesn't it? And can you imagine a phone or a computer not shipping with a browser included by default?

Speaking of browsers, Android is the only mainstream mobile OS that allows third-party browsers. Firefox is currently only possible for Android.

Europe nearing Google antitrust charges

Related Stories