EU Fines Google $5 Billion Over Illegal Android Practices

[Lucian Armasu]

The EC announced a record $5 billion fine against Google over abusing Android's dominance to strengthen its search business. Google said it will appeal.

EU Fines Google $5 Billion Over Illegal Android Practices : Read more

 

[hotaru251]

"because it prevents competition from other search services or browsers such as Firefox to gain significant market share on Android."



Becasue if someone WANTED to use firefox they wouldnt just download the app for it themselves....

i am sorry but ALL OS devices come with w/e brand of search engine is popular.

Google IS the #1 search so itm akes sense to put it on android OS...

also theydo not forbid other searches from being put on the OS.


I honestly feel that google got robbed on this specific lawsuit :/

 

[jimmysmitty]

The EU fines keep going up and up and up. I find these reasons hard to justify as well. The OS is Googles and they should be able to have it set to default with their basic apps. If another company objects they can create their own phone OS, like Samsung was going to try to. Hell Samsung bakes in their own store app in Android and some of their apps are tied to it.

The entire idea of a good free market is that competition will come when needed and if the competition is good the market will innovate and thrive. Look at CPUs. For many years AMDs competition was poor or non-existent. Now they are competing very well and Intel is going to have to push back with better innovations. It didn't require anything but AMD to create a good product. The same can be seen in many markets where companies would have poor products but then good products come out and the market thrives.

The EU trying to force competition or an even playing field wont happen. It never works that way. The reason Android is the most dominant phone OS is because it was the best one for the majority and nothing has come close to beating it yet, even though I do like Windows phone mobile that phone OS has/had poor hardware behind it.

 

[madbiker]

The EU has practiced extortion before and I feel as if Microsoft, Google , etc should simply tell they to F@%k themselves and or no longer offer their products to EU specific areas.

 

[Non-Euclidean]

JIMMYSMITTY:
For many years AMDs competition was poor or non-existent. Now they are competing very well and Intel is going to have to push back with better innovations. It didn't require anything but AMD to create a good product.
_____________________

Err, not quite. Intel paid millions to PC makers so they wouldnt use AMD processors. Look it up.

 

[wysir]

Wow. The EU is really digging deep for this BS. The Android OS is free. If Google wants to put some minor stipulations to use some of its features, that's their business. It's not hurting the consumer nor the phone manufacturer.

What if Google said, "We aren't paying this fine"? Would the EU go for blood and attempt to ban the Android OS for the whole region? If they did, the citizens and 80% smart phone user base would be livid, being forced into a different mobileOS for such stupidity and it would cause major backlash on the EU.

 

[Long__T123]

So is the eu going to go after Microsoft next for preloading internet explore and the windows store on windows 10?

 

[newsonline.4000000]

The EU fines keep going up and up and up. I find these reasons hard to justify as well. The OS is Googles and they should be able to have it set to default with their basic apps. If another company objects they can create their own phone OS, like Samsung was going to try to. Hell Samsung bakes in their own store app in Android and some of their apps are tied to it.

The entire idea of a good free market is that competition will come when needed and if the competition is good the market will innovate and thrive. Look at CPUs. For many years AMDs competition was poor or non-existent. Now they are competing very well and Intel is going to have to push back with better innovations. It didn't require anything but AMD to create a good product. The same can be seen in many markets where companies would have poor products but then good products come out and the market thrives.

The EU trying to force competition or an even playing field wont happen. It never works that way. The reason Android is the most dominant phone OS is because it was the best one for the majority and nothing has come close to beating it yet, even though I do like Windows phone mobile that phone OS has/had poor hardware behind it.

Huge US companies will always buy anything they see as a threat in the market. we need laws to protect us from huge whales in the market that prevent competition. Google Bought Android in 2005 , Apple Bought Siri , and so on ...

I prefer Siri to be an APP for all OS instead of Apple buying it and making it only for Apple.

The Same For Android , I prefer Android to be a another company that becomes bigger and bigger each year. not for Google to buy it.

In the last 20 years , everything promising is being sold to bigger companies. and this is not good for competition at all.

 

[stdragon]

And Apple's iOS walled garden isn't? Someone got bought and paid for at in the EU to pull a stunt like this.

Follow the money.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

"because it prevents competition from other search services or browsers such as Firefox to gain significant market share on Android."



Becasue if someone WANTED to use firefox they wouldnt just download the app for it themselves....

i am sorry but ALL OS devices come with w/e brand of search engine is popular.

Google IS the #1 search so itm akes sense to put it on android OS...

also theydo not forbid other searches from being put on the OS.


I honestly feel that google got robbed on this specific lawsuit :/

Yet, at the same time, like Microsoft and IE integration and inclusion, many users won't bother. Many users won't realize there is an alternative. Also, like integrated IE, you can't just uninstall it, it won't let you.

Google's practice on this is reminiscent of Microsoft's anti-competitive leveraging over the last few decades. Did you have issues as well when MS got slammed for it?


[EDIT]
Yeah, the fine may be steeper than necessary. Yeah, it may be extortion in how the fines are working. Yet, we the consumers haven't helped mandating that Google Play be included in the OS, which will not happen in the full Open Source version of Android that exists. (You can say, just like Chromium is to Chrome, that one is to Android as we all use it... open source, until Google gets it and packs it with licensed proprietary elements it then requires to be present in its distro that we all want.)

 

[drojdier]

"because it prevents competition from other search services or browsers such as Firefox to gain significant market share on Android."



Becasue if someone WANTED to use firefox they wouldnt just download the app for it themselves....

i am sorry but ALL OS devices come with w/e brand of search engine is popular.

Google IS the #1 search so itm akes sense to put it on android OS...

also theydo not forbid other searches from being put on the OS.


I honestly feel that google got robbed on this specific lawsuit :/

You cannot even make the distinction between a web browser and a search engine and think you're capable of judging over a monopoly lawsuit because you managed to read an article's title?

The EU fines keep going up and up and up. I find these reasons hard to justify as well. The OS is Googles and they should be

The fines go up and up because it appears no lessons had been learned from previous, lower, fines. Its similar to increasing penalties for recidivists in criminal cases, it's completely normal.

And no, android is not google's, it's open source. It was (and is) built on Linux kernels that google does not and cannot own.

What about all the shit bloatware apps (e.g. google newspaper) that google forces you to have on your phone without being able to uninstall unless you rootkit (thus voiding warranty) your phone? Is that still nice and fair? Stop being knee jerk white knights and be happy that colossal corporations are being challenged and called to abide existing laws that are not negotiable no matter what your personal preferences are. You're basically angry because EU is asking google to respect laws of whose existence the corporation was fully aware of. What is wrong with you?

 

[hotaru251]

"because it prevents competition from other search services or browsers such as Firefox to gain significant market share on Android."



Becasue if someone WANTED to use firefox they wouldnt just download the app for it themselves....

i am sorry but ALL OS devices come with w/e brand of search engine is popular.

Google IS the #1 search so itm akes sense to put it on android OS...

also theydo not forbid other searches from being put on the OS.


I honestly feel that google got robbed on this specific lawsuit :/

You cannot even make the distinction between a web browser and a search engine and think you're capable of judging over a monopoly lawsuit because you managed to read an article's title?

The EU fines keep going up and up and up. I find these reasons hard to justify as well. The OS is Googles and they should be

The fines go up and up because it appears no lessons had been learned from previous, lower, fines. Its similar to increasing penalties for recidivists in criminal cases, it's completely normal.

And no, android is not google's, it's open source. It was (and is) built on Linux kernels that google does not and cannot own.

What about all the shit bloatware apps (e.g. google newspaper) that google forces you to have on your phone without being able to uninstall unless you rootkit (thus voiding warranty) your phone? /quotemsg]

#1 "Android (operating system) Android is a mobile operating system developed by Google, based on a modified version of the Linux kernel and other open source software"

and #2 what about apple? samsung? literally every OEM computer/phone has SOMETHING you can not uninstall normally.

But they are not being hit by EU why?

oh and yes i can make distinction between ad web browser and search engine. Given the details of WHY they suing them it matters not. the point is becasue they put their developed search on their developed OS as the default they get sued?

Would be like me makign a cure for cancer, releasing it to other people, and then being sued by someone selling it for $5000 when I charge $5.

The EU is just being flat out greedy and grasping at ANYTHING .

 

[jaber2]

Maybe if they didn't complain about IE

 

[drojdier]

#1 "Android (operating system) Android is a mobile operating system developed by Google, based on a modified version of the Linux kernel and other open source software"

and #2 what about apple? samsung? literally every OEM computer/phone has SOMETHING you can not uninstall normally.

But they are not being hit by EU why?

oh and yes i can make distinction between ad web browser and search engine. Given the details of WHY they suing them it matters not. the point is becasue they put their developed search on their developed OS as the default they get sued?

Would be like me makign a cure for cancer, releasing it to other people, and then being sued by someone selling it for $5000 when I charge $5.

The EU is just being flat out greedy and grasping at ANYTHING .

#1 - again you can't seem to make the distinction between developing and owning. Google only owns Android brand/trademark, they cannot own an open source software. If you use an open source kernel to develop an OS, you cannot own that OS because you cannot own the core part of that software (the kernel). Look that on wiki as well while you're still at it.

#2 - so your argument is whataboutism? And you want to be taken seriously?

But OK, I'll humor you with an answer that is already found in the article itself: because at this moment, in this particular sector of the market, google is the one in a overwhelmingly dominant position in the EU. Not apple or microsoft or samsung. You do realize that mathematically it is possible for only ONE company to be in a dominant position?

Also, it's not about just having search app pre-installed, but also google chrome. Also about 10-15 other apps. Also completely preventing phone manufacturers to use other android features. Considering that android IS an open-source OS, blocking other developer's products that are built on this framework is completely against the concept of open-source. If google were so bent on having their OWN OS they should have developed it from zero and own it properly. They can't have the (free) cake and eat it too.


As for your comparison, I'm not sure how you consider that it applies in this situation...? It makes zero sense. EU doesn't sell anything, it is not in any sort of competition with google and it cannot even be. EU is not a commercial company, not sure if you're aware of this.

 

[littlestephen0]

This is exactly what Bill Gates did to ensure Microsoft squished all others. While we were angst-ing from the "blue screen of death", better OS's were crushed, backstabbed and harrassed into oblivion by the guy who thinks he can buy a Nobel Prize.
Open source is the best way to advance tech and humanity. The profit motive is more destructive than war. Alta Vista was superior to google now sadly purchased by yahoo to make more profits. Why do schools *(us taxpayers) pay for windows and Microsoft office when they could use Linux and Libre Office or Open Office for free? Support is not an answer. It is not even needed.

 

[derekullo]

I had to manually install Google on my S9+.

Can I sue google for not requiring the manufacturer to install google on my phone?


I don't really need 5 search engines, just 1 perfect search engine that finds everything I need.

I also don't need 5 browsers, 1 perfect browser would be ideal, but I'll settle for Chrome+Firefox.

 

[drojdier]

I had to manually install Google on my S9+.

Can I sue google for not requiring the manufacturer to install google on my phone?


I don't really need 5 search engines, just 1 perfect search engine that finds everything I need.

I also don't need 5 browsers, 1 perfect browser would be ideal, but I'll settle for Chrome+Firefox.

That's not what monopoly laws are about. They are about not allowing a single entity (regardless on whether the product they deliver is good or bad!! - this is crucial) to control an overwhelming proportion of a certain market sector.

You (and many others) are basically saying that just because currently google products are superior, they should be allowed to be monopolistic. That's incredibly bad for consumers and dangerous because of some really important aspects:

- we are just lucky that the google product suite is generally good, but back when we had the exact same situation with internet explorer, it was a complete shit product that we were forced to contend with. Laws should not be applied arbitrarily or preferentially. They should be applied equally. Of course you will might say that in this case, since the products are good, it is bad for the consumers to punish google, but that's false because:

- monopolistic situations stifle quality growth and healthy competition. The very first company whose products quality growth will be stopped in such a situation is the very company on top. Why would they further invest in their products when they could just maintain status quo and suffocate the competition

- we have absolutely no evidence how much better both google products and their competitors could be if the environment wouldn't be monopolistic but more equitable. Yeah, bing and yahoo search are junk, but they will never see any kind of interest or serious investment from their own companies when they are faced with an insurmountable status quo. It's a losing bet. So they're just kept barely alive.


Consumers should be overjoyed when such news are presented because big corporations have to be held accountable as well. Anti-monopoly laws are a fundamental component of truly free markets.

 

[jimmysmitty]

JIMMYSMITTY:
For many years AMDs competition was poor or non-existent. Now they are competing very well and Intel is going to have to push back with better innovations. It didn't require anything but AMD to create a good product.
_____________________

Err, not quite. Intel paid millions to PC makers so they wouldnt use AMD processors. Look it
up.

From the launch of Intels Core 2 up until Ryzen nothing AMD has had has been competitive enough. Barcelona (known as Phenom I) was a poor product that failed to compete with the first gen Core 2 CPUs until the Phenom II release which was over shadowed by the second gen Core 2. Bulldozer failed to compete with Core i3/5/7 in anything but price. Ryzen is the first product that competes with Intel in many ways.

I said nothing about before that. I know what happened. It wasn't quite as you simplistically put it though I wont get into it as it had nothing to do with the past 10 years (technically 12 since Core 2 launched in 2006, this all happened during the Pentium 4 days) where AMD failed to compete. Failed so badly that Intel has (or had as it will be changing now with EPYC) 99% of the HPC Server CPU market.

I had to manually install Google on my S9+.

Can I sue google for not requiring the manufacturer to install google on my phone?


I don't really need 5 search engines, just 1 perfect search engine that finds everything I need.

I also don't need 5 browsers, 1 perfect browser would be ideal, but I'll settle for Chrome+Firefox.

That's not what monopoly laws are about. They are about not allowing a single entity (regardless on whether the product they deliver is good or bad!! - this is crucial) to control an overwhelming proportion of a certain market sector.

You (and many others) are basically saying that just because currently google products are superior, they should be allowed to be monopolistic. That's incredibly bad for consumers and dangerous because of some really important aspects:

- we are just lucky that the google product suite is generally good, but back when we had the exact same situation with internet explorer, it was a complete shit product that we were forced to contend with. Laws should not be applied arbitrarily or preferentially. They should be applied equally. Of course you will might say that in this case, since the products are good, it is bad for the consumers to punish google, but that's false because:

- monopolistic situations stifle quality growth and healthy competition. The very first company whose products quality growth will be stopped in such a situation is the very company on top. Why would they further invest in their products when they could just maintain status quo and suffocate the competition

- we have absolutely no evidence how much better both google products and their competitors could be if the environment wouldn't be monopolistic but more equitable. Yeah, bing and yahoo search are junk, but they will never see any kind of interest or serious investment from their own companies when they are faced with an insurmountable status quo. It's a losing bet. So they're just kept barely alive.


Consumers should be overjoyed when such news are presented because big corporations have to be held accountable as well. Anti-monopoly laws are a fundamental component of truly free markets.

No one is saying that. However a truly free market, a market free of any governmental influence, the superior product should dominate. If the people prefer it it will dominate. That's how it works. if the product starts to fail then the others should come in and start to take over. It might not happen ogver night but it can and does happen. How many large department stores that used to dominate the house are now or have gone under? Sears used to be the go to for EVERYTHING. Now they are closing stores by the hundreds. Why? Because Amazon and the like provided a more preferred platform.

What about MySpace? It was originally the go to social media platform. Where is it now?

The government going in and telling a business what to do it stupid. What does the government run that runs better or more efficiently than in the private sector? Nothing. Everything the government does is inefficient and poorly handled. I work in an industry that does a lot of work for government contracts and have a lot of family and friends who have been in those positions. the Government sucks at everything it does.

 

[Deleted member 2449095]

The EU has practiced extortion before and I feel as if Microsoft, Google , etc should simply tell they to F@%k themselves and or no longer offer their products to EU specific areas.

I don't mind. If they set embargo on their products competition will grow in EU. People will whine, but every changes makes people whine.

As you can see, it's cheaper to pay the fine than allow a competitive market to grow and loose much more in revenue.

 

[bit_user]

Err, not quite. Intel paid millions to PC makers so they wouldnt use AMD processors. Look it up.

Sorry for the down-vote. I misread the first part of your post as a statement, rather than a quote.

 

[bit_user]

And Apple's iOS walled garden isn't? Someone got bought and paid for at in the EU to pull a stunt like this.

Android far overshadows Apple, in the EU (as most other markets). So, it makes sense to tackle the bigger problem, first. Obviously, they should act against Apple, as well.

Follow the money.

What money? You imply there's a money trail to be followed, without providing any evidence or otherwise supporting information.

 

[hotaru251]

funny seeing people "defend" the EU by "forcing specific search/browser" on a phone.

did the EU sue Microsoft for EVERY single OS made having just IE and google search on it since what...win 95?

What about Apple and their stuff coming preloaded with safari browser?


Google, may put the stuff on the phone.. but they do NOT force you to use it. Even the playstore, you know THE GOOGLE APP STORE, doesnt block other browsers? (i have firefox on mine along with Brave, firefox focus, and some other one)

If ANYONE wanted to change...they can.
Pretty sure 98% of phone users know how to google/yahoo search/ask/etc "how to get [insert non google application here] on my android phone?"

And being "dominant" in market is irrelevant. Just goes to show that the product they provide IS favored. That is a result of consumers themselves. Saying you cant be dominant in a phone OS is basically saying the public needs to start using other ones....thats violation of free will of the people and their rite of choice


If the EU honestly wants to target this they need to go after EVERY SINGLE COMPANY that pre-loads their own software on the phone.

Until the day phones come bareback (no wares on phone except the required system files/apps) with a "start up" where you pick what browser you want instaled and what search engien you want to use they are targeting google just for the $.

 

[Guest]

Those socialist welfare states have to pay for all the free stuff somehow, and since the end of WW2 all of Europe has been sponging off the US, so why would that change now? Google should just ban the European market from it's product and tell the EU to go F themselves.

 

[bcarter12356]

All of these tech companies should dump the EU. They think they own the Internet and all tech. They're American companies. What happens to all this money if the EU gets it? Does it go into the pockets of the EU leaders? Probably. Europe is becoming a cesspool so they might as well get out.

 

[ghostgixxer]

Wtf !!? This is so dumb it doesn’t make sense at all!! Google offering an open source mobile operating system to the masses “just like the google search engine to begin with” and worked hard for years to build its popularity aren’t guilty of any abuses!! They’re entitled to preinstall google search and chrome from factory. If they wouldn’t allow other search engines or browsers to be installed on android the yes it would be abusive.. but they’re allowing it !! If they’re guilty of such crimes then apple are way worst !! .. they preinstall Safari as factory and restrict their customers to use any other OS but iOS !! Worst.. they refuse to give full support to Mac customers wanting to use Windows or Linux as main OS !! Google isn’t guilty of any crime for distributing a cheap/popular OS to the mobile market!! Manufacturers like LG, Samsung, Motorola, Sony ect are the ones using Android for profits !!