
Google Found Guilty of ‘Abusing Dominant Market Position’ in Russia - ldubinets
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-found-guilty-of-abusing-dominant-market-position-in-russia-1442250025
======
kazinator
GNU Emacs also abuses its dominant position in the editor market by shipping
all this bundled Lisp code.

Over twenty years ago I was a making killing, hand over fist, selling a Usenet
news reading add-on for Emacs. Then those anti-trust bastards included some
Lisp code which does that, and I went down the tubes.

I mean, what gave them the _right_ , you know?

It's as if not only did they disrespect my sense of entitlement, but it's like
they didn't even _see_ it, in spite of its monstrous size.

~~~
click170
I'm assuming this is a sarcastic post.

It's an interesting thought experiment to extrapolate antitrust ideas onto
free software.

If Linux grew big enough could it attract antitrust lawsuits despite not being
the product of any single company?

My first impression was to draw the line at organizations that make money, but
that leaves the possibility for free software growing so big as to hinder
progress, which isn't necessarily beneficial for the community either.

Discuss(?)

~~~
kazinator
> _I 'm assuming this is a sarcastic post._

More like satirical.

I just returned to this tab 56 minutes after the fact, and wanted to delete
the comment, but when I clicked the delete link, "1 point" flipped to "13
points". :)

My point is, why is something like GNU Emacs or GNU/Linux above anti-trust
with regard to bundling? Suppose that GNU/Linux had only one distribution, and
it was so popular that it was on 99% of the world's desktops. There wouldn't
be any anti-trust hoopla regarding that distribution having a preferred web
browser, no matter how deeply integrated.

Morally, the users of this platform would be just as locked in as users of
Windows and IE. (Or Google Android and some Google Service app or what have
you).

Anti-trust somehow only picks targets from which it can squeeze money. That's
what it's about, not any morality of the situation or what is good for
consumers. Those are just pretexts.

(The very fact that _Russia_ is eagerly aping this concept speaks _volumes_ ).

Auntie Ayn on anti-trust laws:
[http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/antitrust_laws.html](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/antitrust_laws.html)

~~~
splawn
> _Suppose that GNU /Linux had only one distribution, and it was so popular
> that it was on 99% of the world's desktops. There wouldn't be any anti-trust
> hoopla regarding that distribution having a preferred web browser, no matter
> how deeply integrated._

Assuming that in this alternate world GNU/Linux wasn't malleable (either
because its not open source or for some other reason I am not able to think
of). I think there would be anti-trust "hoopla".

For example... Think of the negative response everyone had back when ubuntu
started sending amazon data... I changed distros. I don't think just because a
system is based in GNU/Linux means that it is automatically sainted.

------
x0x0
The crux of the article:

    
    
       Google said in February that device makers “are free to install the apps 
       they choose, and consumers always have complete control over the apps on 
       their devices.”
       
       Several device manufacturers that pre-install Yandex apps notified the 
       company in 2014 that they were “no longer able to pre-install Yandex 
       services,” such as Yandex’s search and map apps on Google’s Android devices, 
       prompting Yandex to make a complaint to the antitrust authorities. [1]
    

From an earlier article:

    
    
       In order to install Google Play on their devices, device manufacturers are 
       required to preinstall the entire suite of Google GMS services, and set 
       Google as the default search.  In addition to that, device manufacturers are 
       increasingly prohibited from installing any services from Google’s 
       competitors on their devices… The openness of Android is now in a thing of 
       the past.” [Yandex' claim] [2]
    
    

[1] [http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-found-guilty-of-
abusing-d...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-found-guilty-of-abusing-
dominant-market-position-in-russia-1442250025)

[2] [http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/18/yandex-google-russia-
antitr...](http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/18/yandex-google-russia-antitrust/)

~~~
fapjacks
Sounds like some monopolization to me. Google can't be trusted to tell the
truth here anymore than the US govt can be trusted to tell the truth about
spying. There is absolutely zero incentive to admit to wrongdoing. My only
question is why can't we go after Microsoft for locking down hardware in the
same way.

~~~
Someone1234
> My only question is why can't we go after Microsoft for locking down
> hardware in the same way.

Microsoft's hardware (e.g. Surface Pro) is less locked down than the
competition's version of the same (e.g. iPad). Why must ever topic devolve
into Microsoft bashing?

~~~
fapjacks
I should clarify that here I'm not talking about Microsoft's hardware like the
Surface. I'm talking about being able to buy a computer from a manufacturer
without having to pay $99 for an installation of Microsoft Windows that I
explicitly _do not want_. Some effort was made to stop this practice (of MS
paying manufacturers not to offer machines without Windows), but it clearly
didn't go very far in solving the problem. Either you're going to pay for a
copy of MS Windows, or you're going to build your own machine (or pay about as
much as Apple hardware costs from "specialty" hardware retailers). And to
answer your question, I bring this up because I find it difficult to point
fingers at Google for the same behavior without bringing up an example of a
company that is flatly getting away with murder.

~~~
jasonlotito
> I'm talking about being able to buy a computer from a manufacturer without
> having to pay $99 for an installation of Microsoft Windows that I explicitly
> do not want.

You can. You are not limited to specialty outfits as well, nor are you
required to pay a lot for it, or any of the other numerous criteria you try to
add on as well. Being able to buy a PC without paying for Windows or paying
for an Apple product is incredibly easy for the average person today.

~~~
fapjacks
No, you are shoehorned into buying a very specific model. It _should_ be no
problem whatsoever to choose _any_ model on that site, and select "Ubuntu" for
the OS, but you can't. If you go and look (and here I mean actually go and
look[0]), the vast majority of machines that you can buy do not have the
option to _not_ pay for a Windows license. The choice you get is "Windows 8.1
or Windows 10".

[0] [http://www.dell.com/us/p/laptops/xps-
laptops](http://www.dell.com/us/p/laptops/xps-laptops)

~~~
dump100
that is a choice Dell has made based of customer demand, sales and is no
longer forced by MS to do so. MS tried this in 90s and it was major issue in
the antitrust investigation

~~~
fapjacks
... And clearly today, as well.

------
stcredzero
But really, it's 'Abusing Dominant Market Position without Permission.'

~~~
fapjacks
Absolutely this. In Russia especially, it's all about getting permission for
this kind of behavior.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I think it's a bit more than that. I suspect it's about not having
uncontrolled (by Russia) sources of information for the Russian people.

------
jontcalho
Google seems to be singled out and especially targeted by these antitrust
allegation and investigations, I mean in the larger sense not just here where
it's mostly a protectionist outcome as the fact that they technically don't
have a "dominant market position" at ~50% market share is the least of it.

I'm curious How a ruling like that gels with the fact that on an iPhone (the
other half of the market) all services and apps are dictated by Apple and can
not be altered, while on Android not only they can be but the whole OS is
free, Yandex could have commissioned their own hardware like many others do
and they curiously haven't complained about Apple.

Same goes for the search allegation,the argument there is that Google should
feature results from other search engines on _their own site_! Which is mind
Boggling, no one is convinced Facebook or twitter or anyone should include
content from other website but somehow Google is different. Google isn't the
network layer that one must go through it to interact with the web, they are
no "gatekeeper" not technically or metaphorically yet somehow politicians are
convinced they are.

This seems like field distortion to me that somehow regulator were sold on to
(even excluding this Russian example).

~~~
ocdtrekkie
It's about dominant position. Having the sort of stifling monopoly that Google
has opens it up to additional regulation, just like Microsoft was before it.
Apple is a niche market still, to this day, and isn't under as much scrutiny.

~~~
jontcalho
First the term "stifling monopoly" is loaded, and they definitely don't have
it in Russia. 2nd they can't have a "stifling monopoly" since they are just
another node on the graph, you don't need them to "internet", there is always
another site, another app.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
See my response to other commenter on parent comment.

------
ldubinets
Previous discussion, from when the probe began:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9068334](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9068334)

------
rodionos
The jurisdiction bias aside, Google has been indeed busy deploying an array of
devices to disguise the AdWords monopoly behind an alphabetical soup of
projects and products. The more your hear about self-driving cars, the less
attention you're paying to Paid Clicks market share.

------
frozenport
Should we take what the Russian goverment says at face value, or is this part
of a trend in Russian policy to turn away from the West? These are the same
guys trying to ban Reddit and Wikipedia.

~~~
chlestakoff
Yes, and the White House are the same guys running planting spyware in the
American *ware products used around the world at unprecedented scale. Savvy?

~~~
frozenport
USA government spying, therefore USA software bad is not an informed argument.
Choose between Russian or US hegemony and society.

------
fredgrott
Let's see Yandex can indeed fork Android and deliver a device in Russia
without Google apps..what anitrust issue here? Maybe Yandex anticompetitive
desires?

~~~
guard-of-terra
Google makes it impossible for a single manufacturer to ship both google
services android and yandex flavor adroid.

Or any other custom android; just ask Samsung, Google pressurized them to drop
their own ecosystem.

This is anticompetitive if you ask me.

~~~
bitmapbrother
Really? Last time I checked my Samsung tablet I could still go to the Samsung
app store to install apps. Where is this pressure you speak of that made the
Samsung store app go away?

~~~
guard-of-terra
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9068334](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9068334)

"It's not just pressure. They outright cut you off. You cannot ship Google
Androids and non-Google Androids. It's part of the MARA."

I think just having your own store is okay as long as you don't bundle their
competitors and don't exclude google play and you are big enough to put some
weight.

------
piyush_soni
Can someone post a non-paywall link?

~~~
bobuk
[https://archive.is/wGWho](https://archive.is/wGWho)

------
ocdtrekkie
People acting like this is a "Russia against the West" thing are ignoring the
fact that the EU, India, Brazil, and others are all conducting similar
investigations, which are likely to have the same result.

And the US even found merit to investigate Google, before quietly burying the
case.

------
cryoshon
Ten to one that this is a backdoor geopolitical jab at the US.

The Russians are always trying to create and solidify a US-free sphere of
influence. That goes for US companies, US NGOs, you name it.

------
aianus
And how much has 'Yandex', whatever that is, contributed to Android? Android
exists and is relatively free (as in beer and speech) because it drives
traffic to Google. If you don't like it, write your own mobile operating
system from scratch (good luck).

Edit: actually, they'd only need their own app store if I understand the terms
correctly.

~~~
dublinben
Despite being open source, Google does not really accept submissions of code
from third parties. Yandex does in fact have their own app store, but many
apps are only published on the Google Play Store.

~~~
bitmapbrother
This is untrue. Android has has many contributions from third parties.
Samsung, Sony, LG, etc have all contributed to the AOSP project.

------
Grue3
Google is not even the most popular search engine in Russia. This is why
Russian courts are commonly considered a running joke.

~~~
dump100
or your reading comprehension is very poor, it is about Android monopoly(86%)
being abused to promote search.

~~~
Grue3
Well, I wasn't able to read the entire article since it's behind the paywall,
but I'd be surprised if Android market share is this high in Russia. iPhones
are quite popular here as well.

------
scarmig
Whatever suspicions I have about the process by which this decision was made,
it seems in principle like a sane ruling that'll improve the openness of the
Android platform.

------
Oletros
Filled in February 2015 and ruled in September 2015? Russian justice is very
fast, and the results are really shocking and surprising

~~~
trhway
the main theme in Russia today is "replacing of imported goods and services
with domestic ones". The strategy consists of 3 stages:

1\. prohibit, bash, etc... foreign goods and services

2\. ...

3\. enjoy quality replacement by domestic manufacturers and providers.

right now the stage 1 is at full swing.

~~~
aianus
2\. should read ??? because 3. will never happen (see China).

~~~
ethanbond
This seems like a non sequitur. Care to elaborate more on China's current
state and how it's analogous to Russia's future?

~~~
aianus
China has plenty of replacements but they are nowhere near western equivalents
in quality.

------
bitmapbrother
It's time for Google to close Android and quit dealing with this bullshit. If
you want Android, buy a Google phone with Google Apps and Services and get all
your updates directly from Google in a timely manner.

~~~
dump100
monopoly abuse law will still apply, unless this move substantially remove the
marketshare of Android.

