Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by cageymaru, Jul 18, 2018.
One can always rely on the EU to pass a new series of taxes off as fines...
I call BS here. Amazon has their own store ecosystem and I am sure they wanted to keep that. I think it was users that wanted the google app store.
I'm betting that the EU never sees that money.
You're probably right that it was customers that wanted the Google Play store on the Amazon devices. So when the phone manufacturers went to add the Google Play store, Google denied them according to the spokesperson. Nobody wants to sell a phone without access to the biggest app store.
How long before Google finds a way to make the Play Store hard-wired into Chrome, searchable only with their engine?
Why settle for two, lets go for three?
Go, Og, Le
Anyway, should go after phone makers that lock the bootloader so people can't install a custom ROM.
I think it time that the EU set a rule that a license is required to use a PC
They are already a nanny state one more rule won't hurt.
This makes no sense.
I am hoping they never see that money.
I think he is missing that Google is in the AD and data mining business why would they limit their market like that.
Amazon created their own store ecosystem because Google prevented them from using their store. Amazon would jump on the Play Store in an instant, since they would instantly become competitive with every other Android phone.
Except this isn't actually what's happening. They're not telling anyone to do anything. AOSP doesn't require Google's app store. It's an opt in. But it's also Google's intellectual property, thats cost them billions over a decade+ to cultivate it to where it is today, and make it so compelling that third parties actually bitch that nobody can live without it and Android is worthless without it.
In other words there are companies riding the Android gravy train that feel Google should give their IP away and make their app store and firstparty apps open source to be hacked up any way a third party sees fit. If you strip away all the irrational Google hate in threads like these, then this is what this comes down to.
It seems Google's mistake was open sourcing Android to begin with. Because Apples iOS is completely locked to Apple hardware, and they'd sue anyone that got iOS running on any non Apple device. Yet nobody's outraged that iOS or the apple App Store are not being made available to third parties or third party hardware.
This is pretty much it in a nutshell.
Seriously, I'm dumbfounded people are taking Googles side on this. Google is essentially forcing Amazon into having a worse app ecosystem, putting their phones at a competitive disadvantage, simply because Amazon refused to pack Google web services (an unrelated service to the Google Play Store) on their phones. Textbook anti-competitive practices.
It is a psychology issue. for example, most employers automatically opt you into a retirements savings plan these days. The result is 90% of people keep it and don't change when before it was well below 20%. That is a huge difference. The same goes for apps on your phone...most people will stick to what is shown to them...thus by default giving google a leg up.
You're dumbfounded because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. This isn't what happened with the Fire phone.
Oh you were on Amazon's board of directors? Cool.
No, just quoting law.
LOL. Part of all my rooted phones is loading appropriate google apps. I take it out ... then put it back.
Legit Question: Can you explain the finer differences between MS, Apple, and Google and why two of the three are in trouble?
Legit curious, cause I don't get it.
You missed the implication - that you knew why Amazon made the decision they did. You dont.
Also I dont see any quotes or references in your statement.
The issue here for MSFT and Google is they are using dominance in one area (Operating Systems) to improve their dominance in an entirely separate area (Browsers/Web Services). In most Western nations, that's a big no-no.
In MSFT's case, Windows is the dominant OS on Desktops, and all Windows versions come pre-packaged with IE, which defaults to using both msn.com (owned by MSFT) and Bing (owned by MSFT). The EU ruled that MSFT was using it's dominant position with Windows to unfairly benefit it's web services (IE, msn, and Bing).
In Googles case, the situation is worse. Not only is all the above true for Google, but the Android licensing is also restrictive to the point where if an OEM chooses to not use Google's Web Services exclusively on their devices then they lose access to the Google Play Store, which obviously puts them at a massive disadvantage compared to the competition. They are also tied to specific versions of Android, which prevents them from using customized versions (such as Amazons). So essentially, Google is saying to all OEMs "Package Google Web Services and Chrome on stock Android, or lose access to the App Store". That's a huge no-no.
If I were google I'd make a matching donation to the Brexit people.
Microsoft suuuuuucccckkkkkkkkksssssssssssssssssssss .....
Even if they were number one, they would still suck. They fuk up everything.
Google is number one for a reason, they are head and shoulders better than anyone else at what they do.
Anyone can install I.E. on their android device. Apple as well.
It's their OS, their default apps.
When I buy a car, say a Dodge. .... it comes with a default radio. Do I now sue dodge because of that default radio? Fuck no! If I don't like it I can go by an Alpine head unit.
I'm sure they will win on appeal.
It's in the linked news article.
So what's happening here, is that in order to gain access to the Google App Store, you are required to also pre-install Google Search and Google Web Services. That's what the EU came down on. Being prevented from using customized versions of the Android OS also didn't help matters much.
Now, in Amazon's case, they decided to not use Google Search or Google Web Services, so Google refused to give them a license to use the Play Store.
Which they can do. What they CAN'T do is use those default apps to their advantage. Having IE point to msn, having the default search engine be Bing is what the problem is, since they are using their dominant position in the OS market to their advantage in other unrelated markets. That's illegal under both US and EU law.
The *problem* is when the applications that are pre-loaded on the OS directly give a competitive advantage to the OS vendor in some other area. In MSFT and Googles case, this is where they got into trouble. Apple doesn't have this problem since having Safari as the default browser doesn't directly benefit them in any way.
That's fine, since the radio in question doesn't come pre-configured to benefit Dodge in some other market area.
Now, if Dodge decided to make a web search engine, and their radios came pre-configured to tune to a Dodge radio station that promoted their search engine, then they'd have a problem.
See the difference?
No they won't. This is textbook. At most they get the damages reduced or come up with some sort of deal to lessen the penalties.
Anti monoply action does not suck. This is the reason there are more competition and more choices for service provides outside the states than inside.
Sarcasm escapes some here, I see. Google is in hot water for tying unrelated products together - so make them one product and bingo, problem solved.
How would that limit them in any way? Oh well, see above.
That actually causes more problems; remember when Windows broke when you disabled IE?
Understand the root of the complaint: Google essentially forced OEMs to pre-install Google Search and Google Web Services to gain access to the Google Play Store. They also paid OEMs to ensure only Google services came pre-installed. Finally, they limited OEMs to stock Android, removing any alternative derivatives from the market.
Each one of these is illegal under US/EU law.
All Google needs to do to not be found in violation is:
*) Don't require using Google Search or Google Web Services in order to gain a license to the Google Play Store
*) Don't pay OEMs to use Google Search and Google Web Services exclusively
*) Don't force OEMs to use stock Android
None of these are onerous or controversial changes.
Not Google, no don't make them follow the same rules as everyone else. They aren't Microsoft so they should be allowed to so what they want. Fuck the EU. Those greedy fucks are always doing this type of shit to Google. Who cares if you are forced to use their stuff and nobody else's. I didn't buy a Android phone to use Safari as my browser or bing as search engine.
And now you highlight the real reason behind all the complaining: The fact it's the EU that handed down the fine. To you, this isn't about Google or the law at all; it's about the EU and how you hate it for "reasons". You admit Google is in the wrong, but no, it's the EU handing down the fine so screw those guys and let Google do what they want, since it doesn't directly affect you.
There's plenty of anti-EU bias here, but it's getting ridiculous at this point. The law is damn clear: Google is in the wrong.
That is one area that they can actually make reasonable arguments for. They want to prevent forks that slow/prevent security patches and have been working to tighten their grip on this.
The EU is actually letting them them off on other issues. The OHA pretty much locks OEMs into their way or the highway
Yet I still can't uninstall Edge, Cortana, the Xbox App, Dropbox, etc. etc. etc. in my Win 10 install...
Maybe I could if I had the European version?
I can see both sides of this. It made sense to enforce this on Microsoft, as they were essentially the only game in town for desktop operating systems there for a while, and they definitely HAD abused the process of bundling things with windows to drive competitors out of business.
Android has at least one viable large scale competitor. It's not in the same boat at all IMHO.
I would love to see a single unified build of Android unable to be modified by OEM's, with updates pushed directly from Google to phones without any OEM involvement, similar to the Windows model. The only thing hardware companies would to would be to make sure their hardware had working drivers.
Fuck, if Samsung phones just had vanilla android, and frequent updates I may actually consider buying them. The biggest problem with android is that every tom dick and harry sees it fit to modify the base code, to the point where it is impossible to manage updates.
In fact, if I were king of the mobile world for a day, I'd bring about something like this:
- Ban locked bootloaders from any manufacturer
- Make sure users can install the OS of their choice
- Make android a binary only release following the PC model with security updates pushed weekly if needed, regardless of how old your handset is.
I understand that part of it, especially since fragmentation is an issue. That being said, "Open Source". You can't have it both ways. Either close source Android, or deal with the fragmentation that comes with OSS.
Personally, I feel Microsoft shouldn't have been fined. Granted, the inability to uninstall the stock browser was an issue, but a relatively minor one. If anything, Microsoft should have been nailed for setting Bing as the default search engine, not the pre-installed browser.
Google is doing much worse then Microsoft ever did. Remember, this isn't about competition per-se, it's about abusive practices that give an unfair advantage against the competition. The fact iOS exists is irrelevant to this discussion; Google is forcing OEMs to use it's services exclusively to gain access to the Google Play Store, and that's the big issue the EU is hitting them for.
I missed the part about the App Store. So because Apple doesn’t have a search engine they are exempt? Is that the distinction I’m missing?
I guess the argument is that the fact that Google requires that OEM's include their search engine and only their search engine or else the device won't gain Play Store access is the problem.
Thanks, I don’t think I’m dumb I just wanted to understand the argument better and it didn’t make sense to me.
Would Apple Maps not be an example of this?
Just another money grab from the EU
Just ran into this with a product. I was given a task of downloading and installing a filter for camera work, only works on apple OS. The link provided instructed me to download vmware player and run an iso of...hang on, I'm pretty sure you can't do this...sir, this is illegal. Are you sure? This guy did it didn't he? Yes, he did, and it's illegal. Oh, darn, well never mind then. Ended quick as that.
I'm not sure where they draw the line. I think it might be a little different because Apple makes their own devices and don't have any third parties using their OS. That and Apple Maps is not a money making service they sell. It exists only as a service on their devices. Correct? (I don't know for sure, I haven't used anything Apple since before Apple Maps existed)