Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by latj | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

latj

No one is going after Google for allowing third party stores.

Google's trouble in Europe is about:

1. Not paying taxes

2. Using their dominance in Search to promote their other products and services while obscuring competitors

3. Using their dominance in mobile to promote their search and web browser

4. Not allowing third parties to use the Play Store which is the default and dominate store for android devices.

Allowing third party stores is not just a great feature for third parties. Its also a good excuse for not letting them into the real store.

View on HN

Not allowing third party stores in the Store is a security feature because they can install APKs that have not passed through Google's security scanner.

Google does not prohibit you from installing third party stores.

Also, how are they using their dominance for search and browsers to do something? I can install Firefox on Android, I cannot install Firefox on iOS. I can do "Hey, Cortana" if I install Cortana on my Android phone and do Bing searches, but not with iOS. I can install the Bing app and get a launcher widget to perform searches with, just like I can with the Nexus Launcher's integration, but not with iOS. I can change the launcher out entirely, I can't on iOS. I can replace the lockscreen, but not with iOS.

And as for taxes, Google paid the taxes that was required of them by Ireland. The EU thinks that they can post-facto change the law to effect Irish companies. This is illegal and immoral.

This is also what the founders of Google have complained about, that US companies can do this, and are forced to do this by their shareholders. They are being punished by the EU for not following the status quo and being made an example of.

So, explain to me, again, how Apple is the bastion of user freedom? Android is a shit OS, but at least it allows me to run whatever I damned please.

You're setting the bar in a weird place with "bastion of user freedom", which is not a claim I see anyone making.

No, the EU commission believes that Ireland gave Google an illegal tax break, which is almost self-evidentiary.

There was no post-facto change of the law. It is simply very normal for illegal acts to be discovered after they were perpetrated. Anything else would border on precognition.

> are forced to do this by their shareholders

No they aren't.

They are using their dominance in search to push chrome on users every chance they get, which has resulted in them dominating the browser space as well. Or do you think Chrome was just good enough to push out IE entirely on merit?

> This is illegal and immoral

Immoral is exploiting tax loopholes for billions of dollars.

> Or do you think Chrome was just good enough to push out IE entirely on merit?

Pretty much the case for older versions of IE. It became the dominant browser even when it was not installed by default.

Microsoft is catching up though.

>> The EU thinks that they can post-facto change the law to effect Irish companies. This is illegal and immoral.

You are severely misinformed.

Ireland broke rules it agreed to under treaty in order to join the single market that have been enforced for decades, often regarding EU based companies. State aid is defined as giving advantages to one company but not others, thereby distorting competitive markets. Ireland is required to apply the same tax rules to all companies and not deal under the table to certain favourites. If they want to distort their markets in this way fine, they can, they just need to leave the EU first.

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en....

The US would be wise to adopt similar rules because its one of the sources of political corruption whereby companies buy tax deals from politicians.

Why is the EU going after Google if Ireland is the one that broke an agreement? Usually we go after the entity that did something wrong.

My guess would be Google has the money, Ireland not as much.

If its the state aid enforcement, then the EU won't. The EU will force Ireland to collect the missing tax because they can't let the infringement succeed i.e. a fair market must be restored.

I don't know which action you are specifically referring to but I know Google have broken any number of accounting rules though e.g. in the UK they claim to carry out no sales activities, all happening in Ireland, despite of course collecting millions of GBP and employing hundreds of UK sales staff...

I'm in no way a Google fanboy: I'm typing this on my Mac, in Safari, which has DuckDuckGo set its search engine. But I think it's kind of nuts that Google could negotiate a tax arrangement with an entity and abide by it in good faith, then have another entity come along and say "your terms are invalid. You owe more in taxes now."

For instance, suppose I were the CEO of a company that negotiated a deal with, say, Utah. I held up my end of the agreement. I'm happy. Utah's happy. Then the US Gov't comes along and says "Utah, you and I agreed that you were going to charge more than you did." Why is that now my problem? I did everything I was supposed to. I don't why if someone has to be on the hook for the difference, then it's me and not Utah (or Google and not Ireland).

If your lawyers didn't catch that the contract with Utah was in violation of federal law, then they fucked up their due diligence. That's on you. It's also on Utah.

Besides, liability laws are a clusterfuck.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Apple and Google negotiators aren't aware that they're bending the laws to their limits? It's pretty far from the innocent 'good faith' that you're suggesting, and better described by the term 'back-room dealing'.

A sports team might win a championship match due to corrupt officials fixing it for a gambling syndicate. Despite the team's innocence, the result still needs to be annulled to preserve the integrity of the game.

Before stating as fact what Ireland did or did not do it is worth waiting until the results of the appeal process.

It isn't as clear cut since Ireland is stating that they never offered Apple any unique benefits but rather there were available for any company in a similar situation.

This. It's far from a clear cut case. The Commission is highly political, under pressure from various advocacy groups, and we can't take it for granted that their opinion on law is correct; the judiciary should decide that.

> So, explain to me, again, how Apple is the bastion of user freedom?

Who said Apple was ?

It's hilariously bizarre how you put this strawman up like criticising Google for their legitimately dodgy and anti-competitive practices has anything to do with Apple.

> I cannot install Firefox on iOS.

Yes you can.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/ios

It does not use Gecko, it uses the Safari engine with all of the optimizations and enhancements disabled.

By Apple rules, any web view inside of an app must use the Safari engine this way.

To be fair, that's not Firefox. That's a Firefox skin for Safari.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com