
European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case - tiger3
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
======
swebs
>In particular, Google 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").

Sounds a lot how Microsoft abused licensing agreements with OEMs to discourage
them from selling PCs not bundled with Windows.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows)

~~~
philipodonnell
Also Internet Explorer. This case seems almost a mirror of MS except in the
phone space instead of PC. Only difference is that when the issue came up in
Congress, MS was confrontational with regulators and Google cut some fat
checks.

~~~
joering2
Also Chrome. Chrome was the biggest shocker to many @ Goog. Even as a Noogler,
people often sit down in cafeteria and talked about how Chrome got traction
and so popular only because it got a main spot on Google's homepage; something
noone, no company or individual advertiser can ever bid for. If that's not
Google's "Microsoft Internet Explorer anti-trust" moment, then nothing is.

~~~
dmix
You're missing the massive point that it was also happened to be far superior
to Firefox and IE when it came out... And it held the #1 spot (by far) for
nearly a decade while Firefox fumbled around and IE remained IE.

It's crazy to say a product only succeeded because Google pushed it hard.
Google (and Microsoft, Yahoo, etc) has a LONG list of failed products they
pushed hard (Wave, Google Plus, etc).

Did it play a role? Sure. But prominent advertising is not the same as forcing
hardware manufacturers to pre-install software. Nor does it suddenly make
customers want a shitty product they wouldn't otherwise use.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Actually, the biggest thing in Chrome's favor was being an installer pack-in.
People still get sometimes Chrome installed on them if they go download Adobe
Reader without unchecking the box. (McAfee Security Scan Plus is Adobe's other
paid pack-in, you might see that instead, depending on your location.) People
seem to vastly forget that a large part of Chrome's dominance of the ordinary
user is the fact that installing half a dozen plugins or tools on Windows has
or still installs Chrome and sets it as your default browser.

When doing PC support for layusers, I've found that: Most people don't know
what Chrome is, and don't know the difference between it, Edge, IE, and the
malicious Chromium fork they have installed on their PCs. (Side note: May the
soulless individuals behind the "WebDiscover Browser" suffer a life of misery
and despair as punishment for their crimes.) They end up with Chrome (or a
malicious fork thereof) due to a bundle installer.

~~~
dmix
I don't see how partnering with a few other software companies to distribute
software via installers is a bad thing or a sign of monopolistic practices
(aka limiting competition and harming customers by forcing them to use a
product they wouldn't otherwise)...

It's a bit shady to make it 'automatically the default browser'. But that is a
problem with the OS. An installer shouldn't be able to make that choice for
the user.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
They fixed this with Windows 10, actually. Which of course, upset people
because it defaults people to Edge, and asks people to give Edge a try when
they change it.

~~~
dmix
True, I remember seeing that now on my moms laptop. I remember it was quite
aggressive in warning you not to switch away from Edge.

Microsoft can never let the marketing people stop having control and ruining
their products. They are trying to make it more useable and user friendlier,
but it's funny seeing the push back within the product.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I've recently said that Microsoft is the most self-defeating company in
history. They often take all of the goodwill they've earned, and then torch it
on minor battles that aren't really making them any money. If someone's gotten
into the settings screen to change their default, they probably have tried
Edge, or at least know what it is and have some reason for switching.

Windows 10 telemetry is a great example: They shot themselves in the foot PR-
wise on an otherwise excellent operating system, chasing a pile of metadata
that won't really be significantly more useful than what they get from people
who voluntarily agree to be Windows Insiders. There isn't a good business case
for preventing people from shutting off error reporting, and it's had a _huge_
impact on mitigating all of their other efforts to repair their image.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I'd say the forced update from 8 to 10, with all the UI dark patterns, was
even worse. An OS "collecting telemetry" on you was mostly an abstract problem
for non-technical users. An OS trying to annoy and trick you into updating to
that scary "telemetry version" \- that's another thing, and I know plenty of
people who were pissed off about that. Hell, my own mother sticks to 8 and
still refuses to entertain the thought of using 10 precisely because of those
attempts at forced upgrade.

It's a shame, really, because Windows 10 is a decent OS, and it fixed most of
the issues with 8.

------
endorphone
This is a dangerous ruling that pushes the world further into the potential
for trade wars by proxy.

Contrary to numerous posts-

-no, the law isn't "clear". This is an incredibly nuanced situation, and the notion that Google was just overtly flouting (ed: thx sjcsjc) the law is outright nonsense. Google has a huge litany of bad practices (I personally recently switched my daily driver to an iPhone for that reason), but simply saying "Surprise....enormous fine" is ridiculous.

-the fine is _enormous_. Various "well it's only a quarter's earnings across all of Google" are outrageous. Over 6 years Google spent a grand total of $1.1B in all expenses for Waymo, for instance. $5B is an enormous, enormous amount of money for any company.

I highly doubt this will be a "pay it and forget it" fine, but is going to
ring across all multinationals as a warning.

~~~
Dayshine
Let's read the law: [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E102&from=EN)

>Article 102

>Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the
internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as
incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between
Member States.

>Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:

>b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of
consumers

>d)making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other
parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to
commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts

Ok, so, Google said "You can't use Google Play unless you force users to have
Google Search installed".

How is that not __clearly __breaching d?

Then they said "You can't use Google Play if you try to help develop __any
android forks __. "

How is that not clearly breaching b?

>but simply saying "Surprise....enormous fine" is ridiculous

They've had at least two years notice, so could have reduced their fine by
complying when they were first warned. [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-1492_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-1492_en.htm) The article literally warns about the exact things
they're still doing.

~~~
endorphone
_How is that not clearly breaching d?_

They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android experience"
(Google experience, whatever -- the thing that most consumers think of when
they consider Android). They manifestly have a _profound_ connection with each
other.

And let's be clear here lest there be any confusion -- zero customers want a
vendor to do anything different, and the only reason some vendors wanted to is
because they could double dip: Pitch the Android experience and get the market
inroads, while getting some Bing or whatever payola to "force" that on a
consumer.

The same is true of the other claim-

 _Then they said "You can't use Google Play if you try to help develop any
android forks."_

Google's argument, whether honest or not, is that if you need a consistent
representation of the Android experience that you're selling to consumers. If
the GS8 has the full Android experience, but then the GS8P has the Android Fun
Store and Bing Search, this can seriously dilute the market opinion of Android
and cause consumer confusion.

This is absolutely not at all clear cut. It is incredibly nuanced. And if we
just go around clubbing everything coarsely, why does my BMW have a BMW
entertainment system? Why couldn't I choose Alpine at the dealer? An
entertainment system is not an engine, right? I don't want to go down the road
of absurd analogies, but if you're seriously presenting the notion that this
is clear cut, you are not really thinking about it much.

As an aside, Google has had the same policies regard their suite of apps since
day 1 of Android. Since the very beginning. When iOS absolutely _dwarfed_ it.
When Blackberry reigned supreme. When I was hefting around my sad little HTC
Dream and listening to the John Gruber's tell us how doomed it was.

~~~
wongarsu
>They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android
experience"

The thing they were fined for was

>[Google] 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);

How is the Play Store related to the Google Seach app or to Chrome? One is an
app store, one is a seach bar and one is a browser. They have nothing in
common and don't interact in any meaningful way (except perhaps the
interaction between the Google Seach app and Chrome, but that relation isn't
part of the ruling).

This is clearly Google using the dominance of the Play store to push other,
completely unrelated apps.

>zero customers want a vendor to do anything different

The first thing I do with a new phone is to try to get rid of that google
search bar on the home screen (I open a browser to seach the web ...), I don't
use mobile chrome, and I prefer rooted CyanogenMod / LineageOS over stock
Android. So I am clearly impacted by all three offenses Google was fined for.
I suspect I am not the only one.

~~~
zaroth
> _How is the Play Store related to the Google Seach app or to Chrome?_

“Related to” does not mean that they are the literally same thing. They are
clearly related as a suite of applications which form the core experience of
what is called “Android”.

The law doesn’t say that if it is technically possible to unbundle a set of
options from a product offering to be sold al la carte that companies must do
that.

These are all essential components of one product — a mobile OS. Mixing and
matching, for the vast majority of users, is neither practical or expected,
and absolutely negatively impacts the brand.

~~~
jhasse
> They are clearly related as a suite of applications which form the core
> experience of what is called “Android”.

I'm using Android every day and never once opened Chrome (instead I'm using
the Lightning browser) or used the Google app to search (I'm just searching
directly in my browser). So IMHO that's definitely NOT the core experience of
Android, while the Play Store is.

~~~
endorphone
Neat. So the OS allowed you to choose alternatives and to avoid Chrome wholly.
So you're fully of the opinion that the EU argument has no merit then, right?

Of course, saying it's a part of the Android/Google Experience is from the
average consumer. You _know_ that you have the Chrome browser if you so
choose. Yes, you can go to the Play Store and install Firefox. Unlike on iOS
where the browser alternatives are facades.

~~~
jhasse
It's the same argument as with Microsoft vs. the EU regarding IE: Defaults are
important when you have a monopoly.

~~~
joshuamorton
I'm pretty sure that an important part of the Microsoft argument was that you
couldn't uninstall ie and it was used by certain system functions even if you
set a different default. That's an important distinction.

(Im a Googler, but that's not particularly relevant to this comment)

~~~
jhasse
I can't uninstall Chrome on my LG Android phone either.

~~~
joshuamorton
No, but you can fully disable it (and that's equivalent to uninstalling, and
wasn't possible on windows).

~~~
datalist
That is certainly not the equivalent as it still occupies storage.

Also, you could actually uninstall IE. That only uninstalled the shell, not
the libraries (as there were dependencies) but it was gone in terms of the
application.

------
DannyBee
The net outcome of this decision will be that nobody will create significant
open platforms of this type anymore, because once you are successful you will
no longer be able to have any control over the experience. Someone will always
be able to find a market that you are hurting.

If you actually read the decision that's essentially their underlying
complaint. They dress it up in terms about search market blah blah blah, but
in the end it's really about whether Google is allowed to control the
experience of Android phones that want to use the Google apps and app store or
not. Android being open at all was already a fight inside Google, this
decision will essentially make it impossible for anybody win that fight in the
future. I can't see why anyone would risk making an open platform again.
Success only has downsides versus Apple's model. I expect the next major
player here will either sell the operating system or sell the phones, and keep
the other stuff closed

~~~
blub
Having worked for so many years at Google, you should be aware that your
employer is forbidding Android manufacturers to also produce any non-certified
Android-based devices. No Android logo, no app store, no GApps, still
forbidden if that company happens to sell an unrelated Android device.

So in fact it is not about "whether Google is allowed to control the
experience of Android phones that want to use the Google apps and app store or
not".

Regarding open source, Android v1 was an underpowered and underfeatured
newcomer in a market dominated by Symbian and Blackberry where Windows was at
a few percent and iOS was making inroads.

There's a very good chance that without it being open source it would have
went precisely nowhere. Let's not rewrite history and make it look like
Android was a clear winner from the beginning, back then even iPhone was
pretty crap, and Android was that times two.

~~~
DannyBee
(The rest we are going to disagree on. I know the specifics of these
agreements and advised on some of them, so i can't talk about them for rea)

"There's a very good chance that without it being open source it would have
went precisely nowhere. "

Why? You say a lot of things, but none seem to related to why this is true. As
far as i can tell, it is definitively not true.

The app developers were happy to go where there was money, and the users
certainly didn't care.

Again, i'm a huge supporter of open source projects, i donate to the FSF, etc.
I would love for it to be the case to say that Android was a success/failure
because of open source. It's just i've seen exactly zero data that supports
this notion, and a lot that doesn't.

The real history rewrite here is the rewrite that Android didn't enable choice
or competition. Before Android all of the systems you're talking about had
user interfaces that were tightly controlled by the carriers right down to the
Verizon internet browser. Your best case scenario would be apple winning. Your
worst case scenario is you still have Verizon deciding what your phone user
interface should be like.

~~~
blub
Developers and users generally won't care whether it's open source, I agree.
Manufacturers like Samsung or Sony would though, especially after their
experiences with Symbian. Not because they care about freedom, but because
they want to have some form of control over their own destiny.

The US market was always an anomaly and under tight carrier control. There the
iPhone and Android enabled choice. This is however mostly irrelevant for the
EU and especially for this verdict. It's undeniable that there are now _fewer_
choices and competitors available, and that most of the ones that are gone
have been killed by Android: Windows Phone, Blackberry, Symbian, Meego,
FirefoxOS, etc.

~~~
njoro
I must say that the whole situation is very disappointing. While western
companies have been folding, China has a very active smartphone ecosystem with
multiple manufacturers of phones and many different providers of services,
including app stores. Wasn't it supposed to be the other way around?

------
maym86
This is a case of breaking a law where there was clear precedent set by the
Microsoft case. Google decided it could get away with it or the cost was worth
it. I'm glad the EU stands up to monopolistic practices and doesn't capitulate
like in the US. Without large companies suppressing competition who knows how
many other choices and products we would have?

~~~
nojvek
Whatever we say about the EU, it seems they’re keeping US companies in check.

Sure GDPR is vague and had Edge cases, but it’s been a huge boon to the world.
Thank you EU.

~~~
mpweiher
> keeping US companies in check

Also keeping EU companies in check :-)

~~~
ebikelaw
If there were any EU tech companies to check, then they would be.

~~~
TheArcane
So according to you, there are zero European tech companies?

~~~
Sylos
It was sarcasm, as the monopolies that the USA have shielded for so long, have
basically killed off the IT market everywhere. There obviously are European
tech companies, but even those are often owned by those US-American megacorps.

------
vivan
Can anyone concisely explain what this fine is for, and also why the same
wouldn't apply to Apple for iOS?

It seems to be a rehash of the issue that Microsoft faced when it only gave
you Internet Explorer on install. But iOS comes with only Safari on install,
and forces you to use Apple's various apps - how is this any different?

~~~
hrktb
A better source:

> The European Commission has accused Google of abusing its Android market
> dominance by bundling its search engine and Chrome apps into the operating
> system. Google has also allegedly blocked phone makers from creating devices
> that run forked versions of Android.

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-
android-e...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-eu-
fine-antitrust)

> How is it any different

Apple doesn’t have a dominent search engine to push down the throat of device
makers.

They also don’t have an iOS consortium nor do work with other makers, so there
is no bullying makers into doing what they want “or else”.

As others pointed out Apple is not in a majority position in the first place,
but this fine is mainly bound to how the search engine and google suitr
services come in the picture, and not on android on its own.

~~~
VikingCoder
Oh, Apple is a brutal dictatorship that doesn't share anything? That's fine.

Oh, Google, you're willing to share almost everything with anyone for free,
but you want to put terms on that? Hey, here's a giant fine.

I just don't understand the logic of this at all.

~~~
mrweasel
The logic is that you're not allowed to use your position in one marked to
gain influence in another.

Google knows that most manufacturer needs their devices to ship with the Play
Store, because that's where the apps are and smartphone without apps are
useless. But they use the Play Store as leverage, forcing manufactures to also
ship Chrome, rather than Opera, Firefox or their own browser and that's the
bit that is illegal.

Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify, to force users to iTunes,
and if they didn't then no iPhones on that carriers network.

That being said I don't think Google is using the Play Store to force
installations of Chrome or the Google search app, that's just weird. People
would install Chrome anyway and they already dominate search, so why bother. I
think the reason is technical, but the end result is still illegal.

~~~
nemothekid
> _Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify, to force users to
> iTunes, and if they didn 't then no iPhones on that carriers network._

Doesn't Apple already do this with the App Store? You can't buy an iPhone with
Spotify pre-installed and Apple Music can leverage its position of not having
to give another company a 30% cut to undercut spotify's prices.

~~~
cmsj
Correct, but Apple doesn't have an overwhelming market majority, so under
antitrust laws it isn't capable of inhibiting competition.

~~~
greggman
going from the actual ruling against microsoft, that ruling was microsoft had
a monopoly on Intel base computers and not computers in general. Apple has an
even larger monopoly on A9, A10, A11 based computers. in fact they have 100%
monopoly for those computers

------
cageface
I'm having a really hard time figuring out what happy ending the EU has in
mind here. Google stops licensing Android to OEMs and doubles down on Pixel.
It takes them years to catch up to Apple's marking and distribution head
start, if they ever do. Samsung goes back to Tizen, which nobody wants, and
sales plummet. All the other Android OEMs disappear.

All we have left is Apple and the most expensive, proprietary and locked down
platform in computing history. A single gatekeeper effectively controls the
app space. Safari dictates what happens on the web. Who wins here except for
the company that's already the richest in history?

Or, more likely, the EU keeps going down this road and tech companies
eventually start treating it like the backward nanny state it is and wall it
off.

~~~
pergadad
I get the impression that you didn't read the actual article. There are three
complaints all basically about the contractual conditions Google imposes, two
about imposing Google search and the most interesting one about Google forcing
manufacturers to choose between selling only Google's version with Play Store
& Google apps or never Google's version. This forced in particular the big
ones to commit fully to Google's version and companies like Samsung that might
have been interested in providing a phone with Cyanogen, Lineage, etc etc
simply couldn't do it.

It's a plain and simple competition case where Google was exploiting its
market position "buy only from us or never from us". Your scenario doesn't
make any sense whatsoever. In fact Samsung can produce Tizen phones already
and still does as it's not a competing Android.

~~~
Anagmate
> "buy only from us or never from us"

And? Seems like a valid move (from both moral and corporate perspective) to
me.

~~~
kingbirdy
If there are lots of people to buy from, that's a fair offer. If there's only
one person to buy from (Google, in this case), that's not a fair offer, it's
abusing your monopoly.

------
theBobBob
Very slightly off topic but I actually think how Android handles default apps
is the best of both worlds. It comes with very very good default Google Apps
that work well together but it is very easy to switch out whatever you want
for an alternative. How iOS handles it is the opposite. For their default apps
they either straight out not allow competitors, severely limit what their
competitors or (if I remember correctly) they even removed apps when a newer
iOS added Apple's own version so they were now "competing".

I know that anti-trust laws are probably not applicable as Apple does have a
dominant position based on total market share, but to me this practice seems
far more anti-competitive. Banning competitors seems worse than fully allowing
competitors but providing your own as default that can easily be changed.

~~~
lucb1e
> but it is very easy to switch out whatever you want for an alternative

Do tell how one could switch out the map from Google Maps to anything else
(Bing, OpenStreetMap, whatever).

Or how I could get rid of Google+ without needing to wipe my device or use a
zero-day.

Or perhaps how I could get apk files from their repository without agreeing to
the Google TOS and privacy policy, and without using some hacky system like
Yalp store that breaks every couple of weeks for a little while.

This is definitely __not __easy to swap out. I bet that even from the top 10%
of tech-savvy people on hacker news, there 's 9%. that cannot figure out how
to remove google completely within a normal working day of 8 hours.

~~~
makomk
You switch out the map app like this, same way you change the default app for
anything else: [https://360.here.com/2015/01/29/swap-google-maps-here-
androi...](https://360.here.com/2015/01/29/swap-google-maps-here-android/)
(The instructions for switching to, say, Google's own Waze app are pretty much
the same too.) This is as I understand it not possible on Apple's iOS; even if
you install a third-party mapping application, everything else on the system
which opens up a map will still use Apple's map.

~~~
lucb1e
That's a location picker. I'm talking about the map view on which applications
show you things, such as live views of all trains in the country or something.

And this is just one example, there are a hundred more things that are in the
proprietary google suite, without which you'll be able to install only a few
of the apps available for the platform.

~~~
ehsankia
Hmm, those are the specific apps using Google Maps API. That's like saying why
does HackerNews use jQuery, I want it to use lodash. (I don't know if they do,
just an example).

~~~
lucb1e
Don't they just call the default maps sdk, whatever implementation it is?
Because if I firewall google play services and some other google stuff, but
not the app that uses it, then everything will work but the map isn't
displayed. It's google play services that does the map loading, not the app,
it seems.

------
innerspirit
Some time ago ArsTechnica did a (very upsetting) article with an overview of
all these antitrust practices. Glad to hear something was done about it.

[https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-
on...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-
controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/)

------
menegattig
IMHO, antitrust fines/penalties should change from amount of money to some
other type of penalty, like temporary market exclusion/block or something,
otherwise companies like Google and others can simply use its cash (that's was
also made due to the unfair advantage), pay the fine and move on to the next
market dominance.

They will always have cash to pay, even if the fines are higher and higher.
They kind of expect for this in their long term strategic planning.

~~~
r_singh
This makes even more sense with context from Google's deal with Apple to make
Google Search the default on iPhones for which it pays $3B.

Considering that, $5B doesn't seem to be much of a fine to be literally on the
head of most smartphones in the world.

~~~
archi42
That's hefty. But this does affect all major iPhone markets, not the EU alone.
So they probably (maybe. I guess.) only put a fraction of that on the bill.

~~~
r_singh
It's also worth noting that it's $3B per year that Google pays Apple though _.

_ [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-
apple-3-billio...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-
apple-3-billion-to-remain-default-search--bernstein.html)

~~~
archi42
Good point. But I think if Google/Alphabet does not comply, the commission
could fine them again. But that's difficult to judge now... All we consumers
can do is wait for Google's next move and where it leads from there.

But generally, this is a step in the right direction. As much as I am a fan of
early Google and the great services they offer, a big part of me doesn't like
the privacy-nightmare conglomerate they became.

~~~
r_singh
Yeah I agree. This is a particularly interesting situation because I love part
of google while simultaneously am afraid of parts of it as well.

I would be sad if google was beaten out of existence (seems unlikely I know)
even though my permissions are probably being abused by google and their
effect on me all in all may not be great. However, it makes me happy to see
that the EU is working on making google better.

------
kyrra
Google's response to the ruling: [https://www.blog.google/around-the-
globe/google-europe/andro...](https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-
europe/android-has-created-more-choice-not-less/)

~~~
Dayshine
Oh wow, the arrogance they show with that "It's easy to replace an app" video.

Yes, it is, which is why the EU commission have a whole section on explicitly
why "default install" is still anti-competitive.

~~~
mtgx
> "It's easy to replace an app"

Also, I don't think _all_ Google apps can be uninstalled. Either way, I've
certainly seen apps from other OEM partners that can be removed. That should
outright be illegal within the EU. All apps that aren't strictly necessary for
the functioning of the case operating system should be uninstallable.

~~~
brainwad
A browser has to be installed on Android so that embedded web views work
properly. Similar to how IE has to be installed on Windows.

~~~
Dayshine
Yes, which is fine.

The ruling was because Google say it must be Chrome, and cannot be Firefox.

------
cageface
All it takes is a little thought experiment to see why this doesn't make
sense:

Let's say Google didn't license Android but instead only sold their own Pixel
devices and somehow managed to achieve dominant market share this way. With
good marketing and multiple price points this could easily have happened.
Google search is the default but users can switch it to something else. This
would be fine under the current reading of the law, right? So what this ruling
is effectively doing is punishing Google for trying to create an open mobile
ecosystem to compete with iOS's closed approach. How is this helpful to
consumers?

Feels like a lot of recent EU rulings on technology are well intentioned but
actually make things worse for consumers by picking favorites and raising
barriers to entry.

~~~
DenisM
It wouldn’t be ok. You can’t use one monopolistic product to gain advantage in
another market. Microsoft was forced to randomize browser selection in
Windows, remember?

~~~
teddyfrozevelt
Microsoft was licensing Windows to other companies, in this scenario, Android
is only on Google devices.

------
therealmarv
History is repeating itself. Only difference is that Google search and Chrome
browser is not as bad as MSN and IE in former times. Why Google did not looked
on how MS handled that issue when you become the market leader?

~~~
oblio
Because crime at that level pays and we're talking $$$. The fine is just a
slap on the wrist in the overall scheme of things.

~~~
therealmarv
I somehow doubt it pays more than 5 billion dollars. I mean, even when I had
the option I would use Google search and Google Chrome anyway and I think many
other people too.

~~~
oblio
People use defaults. Look up UC Browser and the Samsung Browser. Especially
their market share.

Regarding potential gains, Android has all but cemented its position as the
smartphone OS. Microsoft did the same in 1995 with Windows in the desktop
market and it has 90%+ marketshare there, 23 years later. It's very likely it
will still dominate the desktop market in 2045.

Android will be at least a loss leader for Google for decades to come. And
they made $10 billion in profit in 2017 alone (of course not all of it is
driven by Android, but you get an impression of the scale).

------
appleflaxen
there is a lot of criticism of the EC by the HN community, but I am extremely
happy to have some push-back against the oligopoly of Apple, Google, etc.

let's do apple, facebook, and amazon next.

now if we could only convince comcast to provide services to the EU....

having a small set of companies controlling everything harms all consumers.

~~~
izacus
This literally strengthens Apple because they'll keep shipping services with
integrated features (banning competition) while Android devices will be banned
from providing the same integrated experience.

~~~
calcifer
I don't understand why people keep making this argument. It's _not_ about
having integrated services. It's about abusing your _dominance_ in one service
to force another onto OEMs and consumers.

Apple has no market dominance in the EU, so nothing in this ruling is relevant
to them.

~~~
izacus
I think you misunderstood my argument, because I really can't see what your
message has to do with mine.

------
mhkool
The European law that was used to fine Google is old and Google was warned
since many years ago Microsoft was fined because it used its powers to force
Internet Explorer to be the only pre-installed browser on Windows. It seems
that Google knowingly broke the law.

------
Andrex
To play devil's advocate, Google's had these rules in place since Android
released. It may be hard to visualize but Android started with 0% market share
like everyone else. The tools Google used in Android's early days to rein in
fragmentation (meaning what the EU is fining them for today) were effective
but Google was still lambasted about not doing _enough_ back then.

The only thing that's changed from then to today is Android's market share.
I'm not so sure taking away Google's ability to fight fragmentation is
necessarily a good thing for consumers or developers.

It'll certainly please OEMs and telcos, though.

------
luispedrocoelho
As a matter of law, the EC may be right, but as a matter of user experience,
the idea that the Android market suffers from not having enough OEM-installed
software on devices is a bit of a stretch. In all android phones/tablets I
have seen there are a few shitty OEM apps that I have never found to be even
close in quality to the google versions.

The EC claims that google have "denied European consumers the benefits of
effective competition in the important mobile sphere", but I fear this will
mean that cheap Android phones will have a shitty OEM-branded webbrowser and
some random search engine link.

~~~
DenisM
Yes some phones will be junk, but is up to the consumers to chose, not up to
monopolists.

~~~
luispedrocoelho
It's not clear to me if google is allowed to demand that non-google app phones
not be called Android or if that would also be considered anti-competitive.

If they must allow Android branded phones that do not come with google apps,
then the EC is making it harder for consumers to choose by disallowing the
normal use of a brand to signal what it is that you are buying when you buy
something. People may buy an Android cheap phone thinking that they are
getting what is now an Android phone and end up with a shittier product.

Under a normal market, these OEM-branded phones would be sold as "ShitPhone OS
12.0" and it'd be clear that you have the option between paying slightly more
for Android, a lot more for iOS or go with ShitPhone 12.0

------
TekMol
I wonder to what extend this was anticipated by the market.

The stock is down about 1%. Not much considering that $5B should be about 1/3
of Googles yearly earnings.

On the other hand, 1% of Googles stock is about $8B. From that viewpoint, one
might think it has come unanticipated.

Then again, stocks rise and fall 1% all the time. So it's hard to read
something into it.

Is this the same case as reported in January here?

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-
results/alphabet...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-
results/alphabets-earnings-miss-profit-estimates-as-spending-grows-
idUSKBN1FL6H4)

"Profit fell 35 percent to $12.6 billion because of the tax bill and a
separate charge last summer for a $2.7 billion European Union antitrust fine,
which is under appeal."

~~~
skj
5b is about one of Google's _quarterly_ earnings.

~~~
cornholio
5b is about one quarter of profit for Google. It's practically peanuts, 0.4%
of their market capitalization.

~~~
jpetso
In return for not having to compete on equal terms in a giant market for
years, that seems like a defensible deal for Google even if the fine is large
per se.

------
guelo
The fact that Google allows other OEMs to install their OS, as opposed to
Apple which does not, is being used against them. If the lesson that Google
learns is that it will kill it's OEM program then consumers will be worse off.

~~~
gowld
Not quite. The problem is that Google offered Android Open Source for free but
then didn't allow its parrtners to use it freely. If they never open sourced
Android they wouldn't have this problem.

~~~
guelo
So you're saying this is an attack on open source licenses that have
conditions on them?

------
a_imho
Google is a serial offender at this point and we are not even into GDPR
territory. It seems these fines might actually be _too low_ if they can't keep
Google's hands off the cookie jar.

------
radium3d
I feel the EU needs to educate their government. Microsoft != Google when it
comes to the Android OS. Google made Android free to make cheap devices
possible for everyone to be able to afford a smartphone. They include their
search engine as a way to fund all of their contribution to the development of
Android. Manufacturers can pay to remove Google, it's still an option for
them. How is this not a trustworthy business model?

~~~
on_and_off
As a dev, I genuinely fear the day when Android devices ship without being
approved by the CTS (compatibility test suite, devised by Google to ensure
that compliant devices implement the APIs correctly).

Fragmentation is 99% FUD right now. If everybody starts shipping huge forks of
Android; with silently diverging APIs, it will be a nightmare.

And that's just for devs.

I guess my point is that I see why the EU reached this conclusion but I am
unsure this will be a net benefit for devs and consumers.

~~~
Dylan16807
So keep the compatibility requirements and remove the anti-competitive
requirements.

------
propman
So Microsoft is out of the phone business and basically the browser business.
That’s the 3rd major phone OS. The rest are Chinese and there’s a huge
cultural gap for them to become competitive in Europe. Google may have stifled
OS competition, but that’s a lot more difficult market to crack than hardware
competition for which google provided a huge opportunity for. It’s a lot
easier making a phone that you know billions of users know the OS interface
for.

If I was Google, I’d use this as a perfect PR opportunity to switch gears and
start charging $250 per phone for licensing Android and then offer $50 per
phone to put all Google related apps on their for a net gain of $200 a phone
plus their previous market share. Chrome, Google, Android are too deeply
infiltrated to even effect a single percent of sales to a new OS competitor.

Then slowly eat away at the competition by producing Pixel and related models
which you can beat the competition for lower and mid phones by jacking up
android licensing as you eat away at the market. End result, EU users pay
hundreds of more per each phone and Hardware companies die off. Apple could
also further jack up their phone prices.

------
minxomat
To put that into context:

> Despite being a record fine, Alphabet generated about the same amount of
> money every 16 days in 2017, based on the company’s reported annual revenue
> of $110.9 billion for the year.

~~~
avar
A fine comes out of your profits, not your revenue. From a Routers[1] source
they had $110.9 billion in revenue, but a profit of $12.6 billion. So this is
somewhere between a third and half of their global profits.

1\. [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-
results/alphabet...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-
results/alphabets-earnings-miss-profit-estimates-as-spending-grows-
idUSKBN1FL6H4)

~~~
arghwhat
Variable fines are generally set based on revenue, rather than profits.

~~~
garmaine
If so, this is a flaw. Not all businesses have the same margin.

~~~
Radle
You can hide profit on the paper, by investing it. So it is impossible to fine
under consideration of profits.

The only way to do is to use revenue, but judges should still consider the
business profit margin.

~~~
garmaine
That’s not the only way. Independent government auditors could make their own
profits assessment and work off that. This is exactly what is done in other
jurisdictions and other industries.

~~~
Radle
Let's say you have one profit bringing business unit like google ads. (Let's
call it main unit) but you also have internal startups in your company (side
units). But you only have one operations department, only one HR department
etc. How do you account the expenses of these departments in relation to main
business and the side units?

You can't. If people are not forced don't write down exactly whether they
spent their time on working for the main unit or the side units units, you
can't later account it correctly. Unfortunately it's not even clear for the
company what happens sometimes. You might for example hire an employee, but
place him in a different business unit than originally planned. Or the
employee later on changes business units.

The other problem with this is even if you require such a strict accounting
setup, you can't tell whether employees and/or departments are accounting
their efforts correctly, it's just incredible difficult to enforce the rule;
to make sure they don't lie. Even if you think hey you can do it, you have to
rigorously enforce this for all companies in your juridiction, because as soon
as you stop looking, they will stop caring.

So the problem is you can't tell the profits before "internal investments" as
long as you can't pin down operational costs.

You'll see that the only thing that you can accurately account for is the main
business units revenue, but you can't give a precise number on operational
income. (Which is revenue - product costs - operational costs).

~~~
garmaine
The setup explicitly allows for contextual customization of approach. You’re
right that it is too complex an issue to precommit a strategy, which is why
you don’t. It’s up to the discretion of the judge and the court as to what
accounting strategy is used in the audit. If the company thinks it is unfair
they can fight it as part of the proceedings or under an appeal.

------
bwb
This one frustrated me to read, i think they should have gotten involved
sooner and worked with google. Instead they slap a crazy high fee for
something that is vague in violation. It does feel a bit like a vendetta here
by the EU.

~~~
heracles
In most (all?) other fields of law you are expected to abide by the rules as
they are stated, or risk being punished by the legislative powers. That's not
a vendetta, that's law as it is most commonly practiced.

I don't see why EU should "work with google" to make them follow regulations
(EDIT: beyond the threat of punishment).

~~~
naturalgradient
The problem is that antitrust laws like these are very selectively enforced.
Selection and prosecution of these cases is hence inherently political as
these are non-standardized arguments or verdicts.

~~~
heracles
That is a fair point, but isn't it built into this particular field?

We can prosecute equally for jaywalking, but anti-competitive behavior gets
worse the bigger the offender is and/or the worse offense they commit. So in
that way it makes sense to prosecute "top-down", that is go after the biggest
ones first.

That's at least what I prefer as an EU member state citizen and consumer.

~~~
azernik
Not only does it get worse the bigger the offender is; in law, generally there
are specific actions that you're not allowed to take _iff_ you're dominant in
the market.

------
iowahansen
My company ran into this time and again, trying to get our browser pre-
installed by the manufacturer only to loose the deal last minute as Google
would threaten to withhold device certification if there is a different
browser pre-installed (beside Google Chrome).

Google is a big bully and if you try to compete with them in an area they care
about, they will use their market dominance to keep your product out. They
have been deserving that fine for a long time.

------
nxoxn
They will attack Google for bundling Google services with their OS and yet all
I want is stock Android free from OEM apps (Samsung please).

~~~
mattlondon
Yeah I laughed at this idea too - the stock Android install that is free of
any bloatware or dubious OEM-replacements for things like gmail or chrome or
the play store or google photos is what a lot of consumers _want_ , yet Google
is getting fined by the EU for basically trying to enforce that.

<shrug>

------
amelius
I'm wondering how such a fine actually comes into existence. How does some EU
committee get the idea that Google is anti-competitive here? Is this the
result of lobbying by competitors? Can we somehow post the EU about instances
where companies are being anti-competitive, and get them to take action
somehow?

Given the enormous amount of anti-competitive behavior we see every day in the
news, I can't help but feel this fine seems a bit arbitrary.

~~~
dao-
> Is this the result of lobbying by competitors?

Probably in part yes, but the European Commission is also pretty proactive.
E.g. if I remember correctly, they reached out to Mozilla to get their take on
how MS was bundling IE with Windows, after Opera originally complained about
it. This came out of it:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=browser+choice+screen&tbm=is...](https://www.google.com/search?q=browser+choice+screen&tbm=isch)

~~~
amelius
> but the European Commission is also pretty proactive.

Isn't it a bit late though?

~~~
dao-
Better late than never, I guess?

The question I meant to answer wasn't about timing but about whether the fine
is a result of lobbying.

~~~
eeZah7Ux
> Better late than never, I guess?

Not for all the companies and FLOSS projects that have been wiped - or not
even started - due to the Google / apple duopoly.

------
throw2016
The absence of competition is a sign a free market is not working as intended.
The rules and benefits of free markets ceases to apply. A monopoly is a market
failure and requires intervention.

Free market advocates are always talking about regulations and the need for
free markets but don't seem to care so much about monopolies, outsize profits,
the accumulation of market power and its abuse that further impedes the
operation of free markets and the billionaires that result.

------
cageface
I think this is a mistake and essentially punishing Google for pursuing an
open distribution model for Android, without which I doubt it would have
emerged as a serious competitor to iOS.

We're all a lot better off, even people that use iOS, because there has been
real competition in mobile. This is essentially choosing which business models
the EU thinks should win.

~~~
shaqbert
The punishment is not for pursuing an open source distribution model, but by
applying undue power in taking back control of the open distribution model.

~~~
repolfx
But Apple hasn't been fined in the same way. So apparently if Google had kept
Android proprietary, and made their own hardware, they'd be totally OK, even
though there'd only be two phone makers left in the world instead of dozens
like there is now?

I'm sorry but this move is garbage. I am British and I'm so glad the UK is
leaving this horrible, success hating farce of a union. Google paid billions
to develop Android and then gave it away for free under the Apache license
_specifically_ to encourage competition and diversity in the smartphone
market. They then added a carrot of some apps and the app store if OEMs agreed
not to introduce backwards incompatibilities, to avoid the J2ME problem of a
hopelessly forked and buggy platform.

If they hadn't done these things, very likely Apple would have wiped out every
competitor in existence.

The EU is sending a powerful message with this move: keep everything
proprietary, pick a high enough price point to price out most poor European
countries, and you'll be fine. Build an open ecosystem where competitors
target every price point and you'll suddenly find yourself being an
involuntary contributing member to the EU's budget. What a great disincentive
to build products for the Spanish or German markets.

~~~
sveme
Isn't it great that you're heading for a hard brexit, then? If the competition
is no level-playing field anymore, how should a local company be successful?

Your points have been addressed above already, if Apple had a dominant market
position, the EU would have handled things differently. And Apple has been
fined by the EU before as well.

~~~
repolfx
Obviously, the EU deciding to terminate all cooperation with the UK because of
an ideological "all or nothing" approach is a tyrannical and cult-like way to
run international relations.

However if the alternative is having to deal with the EU Commission then yep,
I guess hard brexit is the next best alternative.

The reason the EU doesn't have any local mobile companies isn't do to with
Android or Google's licensing terms. The EU _had_ a very successful mobile
firm and it shot itself in the foot over and over so badly it disappeared,
because its own competitor(s) to Android just weren't good enough. Nokia was
hopelessly out-engineered by Silicon Valley and in hindsight it would have
done better to admit that, and become an Android OEM itself. It wouldn't have
had to cut any deal with Google. It already had Ovi Maps and its own app store
infrastructure. It could have done an Amazon and adopted Android without any
strings attached.

~~~
sveme
OT, but what kind of Brexit would you have wanted?

~~~
repolfx
Well it's hard to say that because the EU is the wrong way to organise
European cooperation from the start. European cooperation should be done the
way it used to be, as many multi-lateral agreements and organisations that are
only loosely affiliated or not at all.

But most of the European political elite want to unite the continent under a
single government instead. Given that, the best kind of Brexit would be one
where the UK is no longer a part of this, and can sign various unlinked
bilateral treaties to continue cooperation in the areas where there is
agreement, and discontinue in areas where there are disagreement.

This makes perfect sense - agreement on _everything_ is rarely possible, so
collaboration on the areas where people do agree is the best you can do. It's
also exactly what the UK has proposed repeatedly. However the EU refuses to
allow it, exactly because if people were offered that alternative the EU and
associated gravy train would cease to exist tomorrow.

~~~
sveme
Well, I personally am in favour of the way the EU acts as a permanent umbrella
to organise cooperation and according to the latest polls, the majority of
people in most countries are in favour of that too. Otherwise, with each
country acting on its own, they would be picked apart by the much larger
players, the US, China and Russia.

Maybe the UK media points a wrong picture of the mood in the EU, but I
seriously doubt that it would cease to exist if your alternative would be put
forward. But that's something all Brexiteers tell themselves repeatedly, over
and over, like a mantra.

~~~
repolfx
I'm sure it would cease to exist. The EU has lost _every_ referendum on
further integration held in, what, the last 15 years? The EU political elites
are notorious for telling countries that voted wrong to vote again, or just
ignoring them.

If _every population that 's asked rejects the EU's vision_ what on earth
makes you so sure that a comprehensive alternative wouldn't be popular?

Also there's no such thing as "picked apart" in the sense you mean, i.e.
outside of military strategy. Nobody is picking North Korea apart despite that
it's a world pariah. If a country doesn't want to collaborate with another
country or accept its terms, it doesn't have to - the idea that cooperation is
a form of warfare is exactly the mentality that the EU has, and is why it's so
desperately dangerous and problematic as an organisation.

------
loourr
This is crazy. It's like if Android wasn't open source at all this wouldn't be
an issue. But because it is open source they're being punished.

~~~
tlamponi
False. Windows isn't open source and they got quite the same reacction with
the accusation of using their monopoly to manipulate users into using internet
explorer, thus resulting in a windows version with an initial browser choice
when starting first. I don't know how much they were fined though...

~~~
anderber
So really Apple should also get a similar fine since you can't install any
other default browser or map.

~~~
loourr
It's worse than that. You can't even install windows when you buy one of their
computers!

------
wstrange
One wonders if the unintended consequence of this ruling is to further
diminish competition in the smartphone space down to Apple and Google.

Google is clearly getting in to the smartphone manufacturing business with
Pixel phones and their acquihire of HTC engineers.

Outside of HN, most consumers want the integrated experience offered by Apple
and the default Google apps. You see this with Samsung - where consumers like
the hardware but are not super keen on Samsung Apps.

The easiest way to get that integrated experience is to buy an Apple or Google
device.

------
Kocrachon
This is a bit over my head. How does this apply to Google but not Apple? Don't
they do the exact same thing? One of the arguments I saw was Google pushed its
own market over others. But Apple makes it so you can't use any other market
period. So I'm confused...

------
DiabloD3
So, according to the EU, it is illegal to open source OS components (thus
allowing anyone to use it without further input from Google as long as the
license is followed), but then close source other components and the services
that drive them, although they are given out for free, but require specific
licensing in the contract to distribute said free closed source components and
services on their OEM devices, of which the sale of said devices does not earn
Google money as they are provided to OEMs and users for free?

In addition, said closed source components and services are merely defaults,
and you can install anything you want?

Example: Bing Search, Cortana with full Android Assistant support, Microsoft
Launcher (which has full Bing and Cortana support, just like Pixel Launcher
has for Google), and Microsoft Edge.

Further Example: TouchWiz, Bixby, Samsung Browser, Samsung App Store, Samsung
Pay, Samsung Everything. If there is an AOSP/Google app, Samsung has probably
replaced it with a custom app that is not based on the AOSP/Google version and
has generally ruined their phones with them.

I guess the EU has to fine Microsoft and Samsung too, since they also give
away closed source OS components for Android, and they can only be used with
Microsoft and Samsung services... even though it is optional to use them and
can be replaced with something else.

I guess the EU has to fine Apple too, since they do not allow third party
components at all, all the way from third party app stores, third party
browsers, or anything deemed "overlaps with functionality in iOS
(retroactively as well)".

~~~
Daishiman
Dude you literally did not understand _a single word_ of the ruling.

~~~
DiabloD3
I did. They tried to make an argument that Google forbids Android OEMs from
shipping Google Play on Android without also shipping Google Search, and they
can only opt in all of their devices, not only specific ones.

In the form I stated, this is true, to get Play you must ship Google Search,
and must do so on all of your devices.

What is not true, but implied by the EU ruling is that, a) Android (as defined
as purely AOSP) is incomplete and unusable without Google apps, b) that other
app stores do not exist for Android, c) that other search engines somehow
magically don't work on Android.

None of those are true. I find it _unfortunate_ that Android does not have
higher profile alternative options, but no one else seems to want to put as
much effort into their products as much as Google has.

Google's actions simply do not meet any reasonable definition of being a
monopoly. Google's only action is requiring the entire Google Apps suite
_shipped_ on a device as an all-or-none license, it does not require the end
user to use them, it does not prohibit the end user from installing others or
disabling built in apps, it does not require signing into a Google account to
use the device, it does not prevent APK sideloading.

And, until recently, Google was not even a phone OEM (and arguably still
isn't, as they do not build their Pixels, HTC and LG do), and Pixels are not
nearly as popular as Samsung Galaxy S series (which are famous for "ruining"
the Android experience by using tons of custom Samsung apps), and LG G and V
series, and Motorola phones dominating the mid-tier segment, and China and
India being largely Xiamoi, Huawei, and BBK (Oppo, OnePlus, and Vivo).

Worldwide, Samsung and BBK are the #1 and #2 phone manufacturers, and they
merely use Android as their OS. At what point did the EU have the authority to
say Google had a monopoly when they do not sell Android phones in any
reasonable capacity.

------
frockington
I guess this is one of way finally getting Tech Revenue in Europe. Might have
been easier and less alienating if they just created something instead

------
phront
It seems that it would be better for Google and Apple if Nokia has survived
with its own smartphones and OS.

------
jaimex2
Can Google just close shop in the EU and ignore the fine?

Nothing they provide really mandates they have a physical presence.

~~~
rusk
They could but they'd lose access to the economy with the largest spending
power per capita in the world. Inevitably another player would spring up to
feed this void and could then use that as a platform to start eating their
lunch elsewhere.

~~~
repolfx
They probably wouldn't.

Do you imagine the EU would force every ISP to block Google web search, Gmail,
etc? Beyond being technically difficult I do not believe the EU currently has
the power to create a Great Firewall of Europe like that.

~~~
xg15
Why would the EU do that? The EU demands fines, nothing else. If Google wanted
to leave the market to not pay them, it would be _their_ job to geoblock every
EU IP from using Google services.

~~~
cwills
Doesnt make sense, if google didn’t geoblock EU IP addresses how would the EU
react? Issue another fine which Google won’t pay?

A similar analogy would be like the US blocking their citizens from traveling
to North Korea. But then having direct flights from LA to Pyongyang and
expecting North Korea to enforce the ban of US citizens at their customs. It’s
not their responsibility..

~~~
rusk
Parent post's point was that Google should block European users _in response_
to European sanctions. Why would the EU prevent her denizens from using
Google's services for free?

To twist your analogy this is basically like the US deciding not to give
Pynongyang aid any more, in which case yeah they might just decide to block US
immigration.

------
TheArcane
It's scary how all top comments are essentially pointing out how unfair it is
for Google.

This is the tech version of people starting a $100M GoFundMe for Kylie Jenner
to reach a net worth of $1B.

------
amelius
Is this a serious fine, or just a slap on the fingers?

Can Google just continue their practices after this?

~~~
Radle
If a company simply ignores fines, the regulators will assume that they didn't
choose high enough fines, since it did not hurt the company enough. They'll
schedule another meeting, check whether the company still breaks the rules in
the same way and if so impose fines which are a lot more painful. You can
expect that to happen way faster and with way less bureaucracy then the
initial fine.

~~~
chii
> If a company simply ignores fines

it'd be interesting to imagine how a company could potentially still operate
in a hostile country, if said company is only dealing with cyberspace products
(such as software/saas).

Would they be able to continously ignore any/all rulings, by operating the
datacenter, and any payment mechanisms, outside said hostile country?

~~~
Radle
Yes, the only thing the country can do only block the companies domain in that
case.

For example in Turkey betting is illegal, turkey will block any bet providers
page. But some providers just change their domain regularly.

~~~
anticensor
In Turkey, betting is under state monopoly ( _Spor Toto_ ).

------
codedokode
I would like to add that there was a similar case in Russia where Yandex, a
Russian company, accused Google that it made contracts with phone manufactures
that banned them from preinstalling Google competitors' software. So the
manufacturer had either to agree to those terms or was unable to get a license
for Google Play Services and Google Play [1]

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/google-
reaches-7-8-million...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/google-
reaches-7-8-million-settlement-in-its-android-antitrust-case-in-russia/)

------
bitmapbrother
I'm glad the EU has fined Google 5 billion. It's finally going to make them
reassess their Android open source strategy and hopefully come to the
inevitable conclusion that open sourcing Android was a mistake. Hopefully,
they don't repeat this same mistake with Fuchsia.

As for Google Mobile Services (GMS) - I believe the smart thing to do now
would be to start charging OEM's, that sell phones in the EU, to license GMS
at 5% of the cost of the device or $50 - whichever is lower. If OEM's don't
want to use GMS they're free to ship their own services.

------
tomhoward
Archive (non-paywall) copy:

[http://archive.is/JpjEI](http://archive.is/JpjEI)

~~~
akuji1993
Doing god's work, thank you.

------
minusSeven
I like the amount of trouble EU takes just to protect consumers. This should
actually be applauded. I don't think many countries do this outside Europe.

------
raarts
This is part of the power/money struggle between huge corporations and
governments.

Big corporations often succeed in avoiding taxes [1][2], and regularly pit
states or countries against each other to get the highest tax benefit [3].
Governments really don't like that, but often there's not a lot they can do.

Except for banding up in something like the EU, and using that combined power
to strike back.

[1]
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/google-s-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/google-
s-dutch-sandwich-shielded-16-billion-euros-from-tax)

[2] [https://itep.org/amazon-inc-paid-zero-in-federal-taxes-
in-20...](https://itep.org/amazon-inc-paid-zero-in-federal-taxes-
in-2017-gets-789-million-windfall-from-new-tax-law/)

[3] [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/09/07/could-your-
st...](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/09/07/could-your-state-
land-50-000-amazon-jobs-headquarters-contest-kicks-off/641276001/)

------
dep_b
Google should offer a kickback service. "Install our stuff on your phone and
receive $50 back on your purchase!". Or just use Android without the
preinstalled spyware _but_ with all of the API's that had been moved to Play
Services.

------
hemantv
EU is so much better at antitrust regulations I just wish US was this forward
thinking.

------
ulzeraj
So in practice what is the possibility this will not result in low quality and
even more malicious default configurations? It’s not like hardware
manufacturers are known to bundle all kinds of crap into their systems right?

------
jplayer01
ITT Americans don't care about companies (especially American ones) that abuse
their positions as monopolies.

~~~
Veelox
I do care about companies that abuse their position as a monopoly. I think its
probably right that Google gets fined for not allowing companies to sell
Android forks. What I have a problem with is that if a company is doing some
standard business practice, like paying a different company to exclusively use
their product, that is okay when they are a not a monopoly but that suddenly
become not okay because they have been successful.

~~~
ionised
Because a monopoly is a special status that infers special powers and special
responsibilities.

I'm not sure what is so hard to understand in that.

~~~
Veelox
>Because a monopoly is a special status that infers special powers and special
responsibilities.

In principal I have a problem with legally treating a company different if
they have 85% market share as opposed to 30%. I am okay with making anti-
competitive practices illegal but we should also enforce those on small
companies.

~~~
jakebasile
The idea is that it is almost by definition more difficult or impossible for a
small player to conduct anti-competitive practices, since there are other
competitors to choose from.

------
kerng
Finally its official that Google does evil - good to see this even it came
many years too late, same as it was with Microsoft and IE. But better late,
then never. Now if only the US would do something similae.

------
readhn
Is google too big now and may have to be broken down?

Is having someone as big as google a good thing for the rest of us? Would
society, economies etc benefit from google broken down into several smaller
independent companies?

~~~
tylerl
One money-making company (ads) and dozens of money-losing ones? No, you would
simply cease to have Android, cease to have maps, cease to have docs, etc.
That's not better for anyone (except maybe Apple and Microsoft).

------
cwills
Anyone know which Android based phone manufacturers or brands are based in the
EU? Does the fine match their expected loses? What does the EU do with the
money?

------
jrockway
What about Apple here? I'd like to release a phone with a fork of iOS and the
App Store, but I'm guessing they won't let me.

------
jokoon
Gotta say Android is great, but the amount of bloat and Google apps you cannot
uninstall is bad, especially for cheap phones.

------
Buetol
Now Google is paying a Twitter ad campaign to save their reputation (under the
hashtag #androidworks), they have no shame.

------
matz1
In comparison, anyone know how much total Microsoft have paid for its
antitrust case so far ?

------
billysielu
link is broken

------
archi42
Site is under maintanance, Google Cache link (hahaha):
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:europa....](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-4581_en.htm) //edit: oh, took only a minute or two :) nice work

I really like this point:

> [Google] 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").

Woaah, if this is dropped, it might entice someone to produce Google-free
Android Phones (e.g. with MicroG) WITHOUT sacrificing the "Google pre-
installed" Android market. I would buy the Google-Facebook-Other_BS-free
variant of your otherwise commercial high-to-mid-end, google-and-other-stuff-
infested mobile phone!

~~~
r_singh
I agree, if dropped, this will motivate big electronics players to release
smart phones powered by android that aren't Google infested.

Sometimes when I'm in a cynical mood, I feel like my android phone isn't
really mine, it's owned by google and exists purely to serve them.

This would improve the smartphone market on so many levels. We need a great
driver support for AOSP, multiple app stores, community driven updates, so on
and so forth to make this new reality.

I also feel like Android could play a huge role in IoT if it weren't as Google
infested as you call it.

PS - site is working fine for me.

~~~
mda
This is a funny comment. You can get a samsung infested phone anytime, or
Amazon, or any something from China? AOSP is created and being developed by
google, calling Google's applications infestation is weird. You can also get
an Apple infested (to the very core) phone as well.

~~~
r_singh
Fair enough. I still feel like iPhones are infested with apple apps for my
benefit or at least to not let other cos take advantage of me. Apple’s privacy
oriented disposition makes this perception.

My iPhone serves me even if it is apple infested. My Nexus 6P can’t make me
feel the same. Feels like it exists only to feed google data about me, and
help me a little while doing so.

------
antr
I suggest the URL is changed to the official press release:
[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-4581_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-4581_en.htm)

------
yeleti
Paywalled. Small article. Copy pasting entire article as comment. \-----------
BRUSSELS—The European Union plans to hit Alphabet Inc.’s Google with a record
antitrust fine of €4.34 billion ($5.06 billion) on Wednesday, according to an
official familiar with the matter, a decision that could loosen the company’s
grip on its biggest growth engine: mobile phones.

A formal decision—which would mark the EU’s sharpest rebuke yet to the power
of a handful of tech giants—is set to be taken during Wednesday morning’s
meeting of EU commissioners following a presentation by competition chief
Margrethe Vestager, according to the person. No discussion of the decision is
expected, the official said.

The EU’s antitrust regulator has been looking into whether Google had abused
the dominance of its Android operating system, which runs more than 80% of the
world’s smartphones, in order to promote and entrench its own mobile apps and
services—particularly the company’s eponymous search engine.

Google, which can appeal, has rejected the EU’s case since the bloc issued
formal charges over two years ago. Google says Android, which is free for
manufacturers to use, has increased competition among smartphone makers,
lowering the prices for consumers. Google also says the allegation that it
stymied competing apps is false because manufacturers typically install many
rival apps on Android devices—and consumers can download others.

The fine would top the EU’s €2.4 billion antitrust decision against Google
just over a year ago.

Wednesday’s expected ruling would be the latest in a series of decisions in
which the EU has cast itself in the vanguard of a backlash against U.S. tech
superpowers, on issues ranging from competition to taxes to privacy. Ms.
Vestager has become the face of that battle, arguing that regulators must do
more to restore fairness to the digital market.

The EU’s executive announced Wednesday morning that Ms. Vestager would give a
press conference at 7 a.m. ET.

Write to Laurence Norman at laurence.norman@wsj.com

~~~
akuji1993
Doing god's work, thank you.

------
sqdbps
Right, so Google develops Android at great expense, they release it as an open
source project and now they’re supposed to make even less money from it?

If you think you see similarities between this fine and the microsoft case you
should also consider the differences.

For all intents and purposes the market is split 50/50 between Android and
iOS, and the fact that Android can be competitive with iOS is largely due to
Google’s conditions, as by ensuring quality and consistency they spared
Android from the fate of the desktop linux and turned it into a mass market
product, not to mention the whole free and open source thing, which is a big
deal that is seemingly being brushed aside (what about all the forks?!).

In any other context finnig an open source project for antitrust violations is
absurd.

They keep hitting Google with these record fines as there is no political cost
for hammering Google in the EU it’s all profit, they get fawning headlines
from an approving press and quench the bloodthirst of the politician there who
don’t even try to hide their distaste for US tech firms and Google in
particular (try and look up their quotes), they can talk up the benefits of
free trade all they want and complain about this tariff or that but there is
no denying that much of what the EU does is try and hamstring US tech
companies.

P.S.

A recent indicator as to the political nature of this action, the fine
announcement was delayed until after Trump's visit to europe:
[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust/eu-
go...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust/eu-google-
decision-delayed-to-next-week-source-says-as-trump-visits-idUSKBN1JZ295)

------
burlesona
Nice way to pay for things, fining the crap out of foreign companies.

~~~
Oletros
Yes, foreign companies

[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-2582_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-2582_en.htm)

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-telefonica-fine-
idUSKB...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-telefonica-fine-
idUSKBN0FF0PW20140710)

------
obilgic
More than the amount Netherlands contributes every year!

------
known
Share holders, not Google will pay this $5 billion fine

~~~
anticensor
Google will pay. All subsidiaries of Google are some form of limited-liability
partnerships.

------
yAnonymous
That's for Öffi.

When Google remove free apps that are used by millions of users from the play
store for weeks, because one of their own automated tests fails, such fines
can't come soon enough.

------
throw129090
I think Google gave away too much control with Android. By making it open
source they let OEMs fork it and make worse versions. Apple exerts much more
control and consumers appreciate it. Google controls the Google Pixel and it's
considered a real competitor to the iPhone (in terms of user experience).

------
sergiotapia
Who cares lol - if this fine is a drop in the bucket compared to the gains
they made. They should be fined as a percentage of their gains

~~~
mtarnovan
> Google must now bring the conduct effectively to an end within 90 days or
> face penalty payments of up to 5% of the average daily worldwide turnover of
> Alphabet, Google's parent company.

The 2nd paragraph in the press release.

------
yohann305
What scares me about this huge fine is that someone else than Google is going
to have to pay for it. Maybe the stock shareholders are the ones paying the
price or maybe it will be us, the end consumers.

Expect pricey freemium models coming to the Google product line in the coming
years, which will give the green light to other companies to push higher
prices for software.

We've already entered the age of monthly subscriptions, the amount of iOS apps
using this system is growing at an unprecedented rate. Get ready!

What do you say?

------
gonvaled
Great to see this: the USA has been treating the EU very unfairly regarding
services.

------
cabalamat
If the EU don't want Google or other mobile phone OS providers to do
competition-fixing and other shenanigans, they could create their own European
mobile phone operating system.

They should probably do this anyway, since control of computing platforms and
user data within them is fast becoming a major factor both in geopolitics and
in business.

------
Veelox
Personally I feel like the European Commission is going to far and trying to
make an example of Google. I think there is a space for antitrust fines for
practices but I was it was aimed at practices that are anti-competitive at any
size and are only effective because of a dominate market position. With in
mind I think only 1 of the 3 feels like that to me.

> [Google] 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);

I think this is an acceptable business practice. Saying "If you use one, you
have to use the others" is reasonable. We want to provide a consistent
experience so you cannot pick and choice which part of the bundle you use.

> [Google] made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network
> operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search
> app on their devices;

I don't see how this is a problem in a business. "Hey, we want to use our app.
Here is some money if you agree to only use ours." Seems like a bog standard
way of doing business.

> [Google] 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").

This one I think the Commission has made a good point with this one. This one
does hamper competition because you have to choose Android or Android forks.
Well, that is an obvious choice because of how big Android is. That is bad for
competition and I am okay with Google being fined for it.

Overall I disagree with 2/3 of the reasons but I do respect the Commission to
make the fines big enough that they hurt so that Google might change behavior.

------
zmk_
I find this fine bizarre. Sure, Android is dominating the European markets,
but I find it to be a good thing. I am surprised that the EU commission never
investigated Apple. I don't know when they stopped doing it, but Apple used to
remove apps from their store that were duplicating Apple provided services.

I also think that manufacturers have themselves to thank. AOSP used to be
quite complete in the old days, but every time Google updates it, it takes
ages for the device makers to update their devices (if they do it at all);
that's why so much of what makes Android great right now relies on Play
Services. It was a move that was welcomed by the consumers/tech journalists.

~~~
glenndebacker
"Sure, Android is dominating the European markets, but I find it to be a good
thing. I am surprised that the EU commission never investigated Apple."

You are answering your own question. The problem is that Apple is not under
investigation because it has 15% a 20% marketshare and so it's impact is
regarded as rather small and not seen as a monopoly.

When you have a big share of the pie there are other rules that apply and
personally I'm fine with that. When you have 80% of the market it can't be all
fun and play.

~~~
hesarenu
20% would still be in millions. Those many of users would have little bit less
choice.

