Google Fined $5 Billion by EU

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
That circular reasoning could be used to defend any monopoly. The question is whether the market power is harming consumers.

Google isn't a monopoly, consumers are free not to purchase the service, and most monopolies exist because of government interference in markets.

How many people in 2000 predicted AOL's present status in the service provider market?
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
a monopoly is when there is only a single supplier
there are many in the mobile os field.

no one is forcing anything

You want to be pedantic? Okay, Apple and Google (Android) are a duopoly that control 99% of the smartphone OS market. That duopolies can sometimes control the market like monopolies, and that monopolies, in some cases, cannot control the market, are fairly basic concepts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

mdram

Golden Member
Jan 2, 2014
1,512
208
106
You want to be pedantic? Okay, Apple and Google (Android) are a duopoly that control 99% of the smartphone OS market. That duopolies can sometimes control the market like monopolies, and that monopolies, in some cases, cannot control the market, are fairly basic concepts.

not for lack of competition. there are many other Os's out there.
people just prefer these 2.

remember when blackberry had the lions share?
things change.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
Google isn't a monopoly, consumers are free not to purchase the service

Again, you have to be an imbecile to think that a monopoly means consumers are forced to purchase your service. That's not what it means.

and most monopolies exist because of government interference in markets.

That's a tautology because governments create the legal environment that markets function in. All monopolies exist because of the actions or inactions of governments.

How many people in 2000 predicted AOL's present status in the service provider market?

What the fuck does that mean?
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
You want to be pedantic? Okay, Apple and Google (Android) are a duopoly that control 99% of the smartphone OS market. That duopolies can sometimes control the market like monopolies, and that monopolies, in some cases, cannot control the market, are fairly basic concepts.

Its not pedantic because you are arguing about if something qualifies technically as something harmful. Hashing that out is the whole point.

Android controls 80% of the market because it offers something people want. This market is open to others to try and create an OS, and there are some out there, but nobody really wants that stuff. Are you trying to say that you think its harmful for Google to offer a product people want? Are you trying to say that people do not want it but buy it anyway when they could buy another product?
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,685
126
not for lack of competition. there are many other Os's out there.
people just prefer these 2.

remember when blackberry had the lions share?
things change.

Yeah, things change. Like, it used to not be a monopoly, and now it is.

What other OSs are out there?
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,099
136
again. monopoly means there is a single source.

but wiki has a list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system#Current_software_platforms

Monopoly isn't the right word here. He's arguing harm to consumers. One can violate anti-trust laws in the US, and I assume in Europe, without being a "monopoly."

This isn't about how many OSes there are. It's about the browser market. If one OS is pre-installed, it's a fact that ordinary consumers only rarely bother to install a different one. This then acts as a market barrier for other browsers, who are at a disadvantage because they aren't pre-installed. In theory, eventually developers of other browsers simply quit bothering to update their browsers for the current OSes. Thus consumer choice is limited.

I'm not stating whether I agree or disagree with this decision by the EU or with the prior US actions against Microsoft. I'm just describing the theory accurately because it is getting confused in this thread.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,213
6,813
136
What do you mean add a search bar to apps?

Also, you can change the default browser on android.

As for holding back the companies, that does not make sense either. Android was created by Google and now other companies can make apps for that platform. Google does not block other browsers, and its pretty easy to add others.

What the EU does not like is that Google by default only has their browser on Android. This is just like how M$ only had IE on windows until you went and downloaded another. It was stupid then, and is stupid now.

It's search bar on the home screen. And it's not just that they have to include it, it's that Google has paid companies to exclusively install that search bar.

And yes, Google is considerably better about browser choice than Microsoft was, but it doesn't help, and the browser default isn't the only issue. Rather, it's that phone vendors have to abide by some fairly narrow terms if they want to include the Play Store (and thus stand a hope in hell of selling devices), including that default option. Moreover, Google has taken punitive actions against companies that fork Android (Amazon and Alibaba are notable examples), so it's not exactly laissez-faire.
 

mdram

Golden Member
Jan 2, 2014
1,512
208
106
Monopoly isn't the right word here. He's arguing harm to consumers. One can violate anti-trust laws in the US, and I assume in Europe, without being a "monopoly."

This isn't about how many OSes there are. It's about the browser market. If one OS is pre-installed, it's a fact that ordinary consumers only rarely bother to install a different one. This then acts as a market barrier for other browsers, who are at a disadvantage because they aren't pre-installed. In theory, eventually developers of other browsers simply quit bothering to update their browsers for the current OSes. Thus consumer choice is limited.

I'm not stating whether I agree or disagree with this decision by the EU or with the prior US actions against Microsoft. I'm just describing the theory accurately because it is getting confused in this thread.

my samsung cam with samsungs browser installed and chrome.
i dont use either, i put dolphin on it

consumers need to do their homework with anything. not just use whats there.
 

mdram

Golden Member
Jan 2, 2014
1,512
208
106
It's search bar on the home screen. And it's not just that they have to include it, it's that Google has paid companies to exclusively install that search bar.

And yes, Google is considerably better about browser choice than Microsoft was, but it doesn't help, and the browser default isn't the only issue. Rather, it's that phone vendors have to abide by some fairly narrow terms if they want to include the Play Store (and thus stand a hope in hell of selling devices), including that default option. Moreover, Google has taken punitive actions against companies that fork Android (Amazon and Alibaba are notable examples), so it's not exactly laissez-faire.

that search bar is easily removed.

and dont forget, android is open source. almost every carrier modifies it in some way. at lesat here in the US
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,099
136
my samsung cam with samsungs browser installed and chrome.
i dont use either, i put dolphin on it

consumers need to do their homework with anything. not just use whats there.

I agree. If I want a new browser on my phone, I'll search for it and install it. Most people on tech forums are like that. But it's also a fact that most consumers don't do it. They just use whatever browser is pre-installed. Typical users of smart phones download apps to add new functionality to their phones. They don't download new apps with redundant functionality to the apps they already have. So if you want to develop a browser for the mobile market, you're probably going to be stuck with a niche market even if you have a great product that is better than the pre-installed OS.

It's just a fact that developers of OSes have a lot of control over which apps are successful on any platform with their OS, and they can choose to favor their own apps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
I agree. If I want a new browser on my phone, I'll search for it and install it. Most people on tech forums are like that. But it's also a fact that most consumers don't do it. They just use whatever browser is pre-installed. Typical users of smart phones download apps to add new functionality to their phones. They don't download new apps with redundant functionality to the apps they already have. So if you want to develop a browser for the mobile market, you're probably going to be stuck with a niche market even if you have a great product that is better than the pre-installed OS.

It's just a fact that developers of OSes have a lot of control over which apps are successful on any platform with their OS, and they can choose to favor their own apps.

So those people then dont care, so who is the EU saving?
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,099
136
So those people then dont care, so who is the EU saving?

I already explained the theory behind this and the US action against MS. Because when you create barriers to entry for companies and products, and it limits competition and it limits consumer choice. Consumers don't individually have to "care." That isn't the legal standard in the area of anti-trust.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
I already explained the theory behind this and the US action against MS. Because when you create barriers to entry for companies and products, and it limits competition and it limits consumer choice. Consumers don't individually have to "care." That isn't the legal standard in the area of anti-trust.

It not that they are trying to create a carrier to entry, its that they making sure they control the first experience because they want to make sure everything works. They are not like Apple where they prohibit apps that are duplicates of what Apple has created. If you want another browser, you can easily get it. Its absurd that the EU is trying to say that the friction needs to be 0. Anyone that does not know how to download an app from the store is the same person that does not care what browser is on their phone.
 
Jun 18, 2000
11,134
717
126
Would Google have been fined if it was a closed system, like Apple OS? The whole thing sounds ridiculous to me, just as it did with Windows and Internet Explorer. Google created the semi-open ecosystem and then is fined for forcing carriers to put it's applications on by default.
 

quikah

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
4,081
662
126
Geez, the OP link is useless.

Here is the actual ruling:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm

Google is being accused of 3 things:

1. The require installation of Chrome and Google search app when installing Play Store

Personally I don't like this, but don't really think it is bad. BTW: Chrome mobile is crap due to no ad blocker, the malicious redirects are painful. Google needs to fix this if they are going to continue forcing this on people.

2. They pay some manufacturer to NOT install competing apps.

I can go either way on this charge.

3. Require device manufacturer to not sell any devices with android forks.

This is BS and the main thing I have a problem with.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,213
6,813
136
that search bar is easily removed.

and dont forget, android is open source. almost every carrier modifies it in some way. at lesat here in the US

It is, but they still have to install it, and in many cases aren't allowed to include anything else (say, a Bing bar).

I know Android is open source, and that it's modified by OS vendors and carriers alike. But it's not truly open in that Google attaches conditions to companies that want to sell phones with the Play Store. Your choice is to either abide by whatever Google's terms might be or use AOSP and guarantee that you'll struggle to sell any devices.
 

mdram

Golden Member
Jan 2, 2014
1,512
208
106
It is, but they still have to install it, and in many cases aren't allowed to include anything else (say, a Bing bar).

I know Android is open source, and that it's modified by OS vendors and carriers alike. But it's not truly open in that Google attaches conditions to companies that want to sell phones with the Play Store. Your choice is to either abide by whatever Google's terms might be or use AOSP and guarantee that you'll struggle to sell any devices.

or do what amazon did and create a store
fire tablets are android based, and have their own store
of course in 5 min you can put te play store on one
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
It is, but they still have to install it, and in many cases aren't allowed to include anything else (say, a Bing bar).

I know Android is open source, and that it's modified by OS vendors and carriers alike. But it's not truly open in that Google attaches conditions to companies that want to sell phones with the Play Store. Your choice is to either abide by whatever Google's terms might be or use AOSP and guarantee that you'll struggle to sell any devices.

I bought an Amazon Fire HD 8 last year, and I put the play store on it. Fire HD tablets are extremely popular and do not come with the app store installed.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,234
136
What do you mean add a search bar to apps?

Also, you can change the default browser on android.

As for holding back the companies, that does not make sense either. Android was created by Google and now other companies can make apps for that platform. Google does not block other browsers, and its pretty easy to add others.

What the EU does not like is that Google by default only has their browser on Android. This is just like how M$ only had IE on windows until you went and downloaded another. It was stupid then, and is stupid now.
It wasn't "stupid" then or now.

Windows having a built-in web browser was not much different than having a built-in calculator or text viewer.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,682
10,098
136
It not that they are trying to create a carrier to entry, its that they making sure they control the first experience because they want to make sure everything works. They are not like Apple where they prohibit apps that are duplicates of what Apple has created. If you want another browser, you can easily get it. Its absurd that the EU is trying to say that the friction needs to be 0. Anyone that does not know how to download an app from the store is the same person that does not care what browser is on their phone.
This also isn't about what Samsung chooses to put on their phones. It is about Google forcing Samsung to put their products on Samsung's phones. If Samsung chooses on their own to add the google products, that is fine. But Google is using their market power as the dominant OS to force companies to install their apps, with the hopes of becoming dominate in those areas as well. This is illegal, and is exactly what MS was convicted of in the EU and US.