Comment by gwerbret | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gwerbret | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

A summary of the original findings by the European Commission (1):

"By decision of 18 July 2018, the Commission fined Google for having abused its dominant position by imposing anticompetitive contractual restrictions on manufacturers of mobile devices and on mobile network operators, in some cases since 1 January 2011. Three types of restriction were identified:

1. those contained in ‘distribution agreements’, requiring manufacturers of mobile devices to pre-install the general search (Google Search) and (Chrome) browser apps in order to be able to obtain a licence from Google to use its app store (Play Store);

2. those contained in ‘anti-fragmentation agreements’, under which the operating licences necessary for the pre-installation of the Google Search and Play Store apps could be obtained by mobile device manufacturers only if they undertook not to sell devices running versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google;

3. those contained in ‘revenue share agreements’, under which the grant of a share of Google’s advertising revenue to the manufacturers of mobile devices and the mobile network operators concerned was subject to their undertaking not to pre-install a competing general search service on a predefined portfolio of devices."

1: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_3862705/en/

#2 is the same thing Microsoft got busted for by US antitrust in the late 90s. Microsoft had required computer vendors to NOT sell computers with other OSes (eg Linux). At one point they insisted computer vendors pay for a Windows license on all computers they shipped, even ones shipped without Windows.

Is it? My reading of #2 suggests Google just didn't want phones with ancient or beta versions of Android in the market with Google branding. Fairly reasonable demand, if you ask me.

#1 is right up the alley that busted Microsoft, though.

#2 sounds like it would prevent manufacturers from developing or using Android forks on completely other devices so, for example, you could not sell a device with Amazon's Fire OS (Even without Google's apps, so no hindrance to Google's branding) while also selling other Android devices with Google's apps. Would seriously hinder entry-to-market for Android-based forks.

To be clear, I have not read the original agreements to confirm this is the case, it's just my interpretation of #2.

> #2 suggests Google just didn't want phones with ancient or beta versions of Android in the market with Google branding

I think that would have been acceptable - my reading of #2 is that if you sold phones with a fork of Android, even if that phone did not have Google branding, Google would not allow you to sell *any* phones with Google branding. That does seem very similar to the Microsoft example.

Requiring that someone cannot use Google branding on a phone with an ancient version of Android is legal.

Requiring that someone cannot use Google branding on any device they manufacture or sell, if they also manufacture or sell devices without Google branding that use ancient versions of Android, is entirely illegal in the EU.

> with Google branding

Then the rule was overly broad, since it also prevented them from selling Android phones without Google branding. I think Amazon was involved in that lawsuit after it had issues finding a manufacturer that wasn't bound by that rule.

Why would a manufacturer sell both devices with ancient and current versions of Android at the same time? There is no reason to limit this behavior because no one would do it. This is entirely about smothering AOSP forks.

> versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google

That could include deprecated versions and any forks.

> Is it? My reading of #2 suggests Google just didn't want phones with ancient or beta versions of Android in the market with Google branding.

Judging only by gp's message, it also targets any would-be competitor's fork of Android.

The video deposition of Gates was pretty damning during their anti-trust case. I just remember watching it and having my image of Gates shattered right in front of me. The amount of unhinged arrogance and hubris he had was startling. I know it really damaged his clean cut, good guy image and many of my friends said it completely reversed their opinion of him.

I found a highlights video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRelVFm7iJE

(I see the full 11 hour deposition is also on YouTube, but I think I'll save that for another day.)

So far, being 10 minutes in, I see a little bit of what you mean, but I haven't gotten to anything "unhinged" yet. He just seems like a bit of a smug nerd who's clearly enjoying going toe-to-toe with one of the country's top lawyers.

Do you remember anything that jumped out for you from the deposition? I'd love to see more of what you're getting at.

Great vid, I don't fully blame him he had to play the game. What's amusing is other equally unhinged tech giants pretending they don't do the same.

Do you think today's Gates really learned his lesson and became a better person, or just better at putting on a show?

Time alone mellows out most people.

How many times did he ride Jeffrey Epstein’s plane?

AFAIK the idea isn't that you can't ship devices running other operating systems but that you can't ship devices running non-compliant forks of Android, which I do agree is nigh unto the same thing--as Android is open source and that's a decision Google already made--but I think is worth noting explicitly as others sometimes see it as different (both because it doesn't prevent a greenfield alternative, and as Google gave away Android for free and arguably didn't have to--though I kind of think they originally did to pull off the coalition--and so this is one of the ways they maintain ecosystem control without being closed source, which they arguably could just do now without issue... I mean, they've already gone back hard on the level of openness they started with, and for a year or so around Android 3.x they were closed source, which I have oft claimed was to stifle Amazon).

> I mean, they've already gone back hard on the level of openness they started with

From what I understand, AOSP is not dead, but it's definitely far behind the latest versions of Android. The default apps are not updated, the UI toolkit is behind, most of the new services used by everything in Android are the proprietary bits.

It's basically Darwin at this point, yeah, open source, but in no way shape or form if you build Darwin, do you get Mac OS.

(By "gone back hard" I don't mean "has returned to" but "did a 180 away from". Maybe you are just expanding, but it sort of sounded like you were disagreeing, when in fact I am fully on board. I remember when they started and their stated goal had been to separate all of their build and hosting infrastructure from Google so everyone was working with and seeing live commits to collaborate.)

More periods next time plz

what's funny is that most people think of that trial as being about Microsoft "putting IE in the operating system". Which is hilarious, because where else is your core HTTP fetching DLL, your core HTML parsing DLL, etc, going to go otherwise? A Chromebook is basically an operating system running Chrome and more or less nothing else, vindicating Microsoft's technical decision.

Microsoft's claim at the time was that IE couldn't be removed from the system because it had been integrated into the OS. The government was able to show otherwise. It really had nothing to do with the architecture, but the legal arguments Microsoft's lawyers were making.

But despite that, let's not gloss over about what MS did. If they had been successful there wouldn't have been one web, there would have been two: One for MS (ActiveX and proprietary MS extensions) and one for MacOS/Linux/Netscape/Mozilla/Opera etc. This would have been part of their "Embrace/Extend/Extinguish" strategy they were known for at the time.

No, the government didn't show otherwise (in my opinion). They showed you could remove the component, but it degraded essential functionality because IE and the components (HTTP, HTML and form display) depended on the (the OS did, for updates and other applications). I mean the IE the software component, not the browser, because MSFT comingled them at the OS level. At the time, they planned on replacing much of the user interface with web controls, and even today you can see many vestiges of Internet Explorer-like behavior even though IE is gone.

i woudl have agreed with you in the past but when I was curous and went back through all the cases I was surprised to see that I think (from a technical perspective) MSFT was completely right to do what they want, and the main issue was that they simply didn't understand how to win a case in court.

> Which is hilarious, because where else is your core HTTP fetching DLL, your core HTML parsing DLL, etc, going to go otherwise?

Microsoft insisted that the OS needed the internet explorer executable, not only the rendering engine components. You couldn't even run windows update without it opening IE - in order to load a native ActiveX component that then performed the work. They where desperate to make everything depend on IE without a plan of how to make good use of it, which shouldn't be surprising, back then any complex use of IE would have blue screened the entire system.

> vindicating Microsoft's technical decision.

Imagine a ChromeOS based on IE5 and tell me why I shouldn't break down in hysterical laughter just thinking about it.

It makes perfect sense to me that if MSFT made IE a necessary component to upgrade the operating system, then insisting the OS needs that executable is an absolutely (technically) correct thing to say.

I said it vindicating their decision- not that IE was a good foundation to build a presentation layer on.

> if MSFT made IE a necessary component to upgrade the operating system,

> then insisting the OS

Arguing that a change that had no technical merit made IE necessary, when you are under scrunity for abusing your market position to push IE, seems kinda counterproductive.

> I said it vindicating their decision- not that IE was a good foundation to build a presentation layer on.

Then how does chrome OS vindicate them? You obviously agree that IE was not fit for that purpose.

Now, it is implicit, and you better care or the hidden OEM price of doz, will skyrocket for _you_.

Even, rumors says that a future doz update may brick _your_ hardware...

So I have no doubt Google threw their weight around in the Android space. It's known that they impose conditions for access to the Google suite of apps. But I have a thought that I have a hard time reconciling.

Imagine Google had gone the Apple route of vertically integrating handset production, distribution and sale in the same way Apple did. If they had, there would be no antitrust issue, just like there isn't with Apple.

That seems weird.

How is having third-party manufacturers (well, really it's just Samsung now) create more antitrust issues than the Apple model? That just doesn't seem right.

Well, one way to lose an antitrust case is putting obviously anticompetitive clauses into contracts, like here. This is much easier to prove than the whole "customer harm through abuse of dominant market position" thing!

Much like when Jobs called up all the book publishers and told them straight up "we gotta agree on one price among us, and remember we are doing this to harm Amazon who we both hate". Now this was a slam dunk prosecution!

there was a brief period of time when mobile OSs were shitty but plenty.

Android made a two-player competition better, but it did so at the expenses of other competing OSs which could not gains foothold.

It's practically the story of BeOS vs Windows.

Because Apple paid for all that integration. Google essentially vassalised companies by using the immense money they make from Search to wipe out a market of Phone-OS developers forcing companies to use Android.

Kinda like how Uber was forced to accept they were an employer because they dictated work hours to drivers. Google is being forced to accept they have the potential to be a monopoly, and have abused that.

If me and my wife decide to run with the bulls there is no legal wrong doing so I don't understand why child protective services took little suzy away just because she a five year old had to run away in stark terror from a ton of hooves and fury barely escaping with her life!

Differing relationships come with differing obligations. It appears fairly straightforward that its illegal in Europe to impose such obligations on other market players. If they couldn't abide by that they could have declined to do business in the continent. It's not really weird that different places have different rules.

> By decision of 18 July 2018

So they haven't paid this fine for over four years now and there is no penalty for it? Just because they have deep enough pockets to afford expensive lawyers? I am sure not having to pay those four billion in fines for over four years more than pays the cost of these lawyers even if they eventually have to pay this fine, right?

I mean I am glad to see a big fine like this but surely the fines must go up every day it is left unpaid.

The irony is that if Google had not licensed Android and only manufactured its own devices, like Apple does, it could restrict consumer options much more harshly without EU fines and restrictions.

If Google chose that path, other manufacturers would still need an OS to put on their phones - and it's likely Windows Phone would be the contender. So maybe we'd live in a world with 3 mobile OS's and more competition.

The point is, the alternative scenario involves more actors making different choices.

We would live in a world with 2 mobile OS's iOS and Windows Phone. Android would land in Google Graveyard.

Then maybe Firefox OS and Ubuntu Touch would still be around as FOSS mobile OS.

Ubuntu Touch is still around, see [0]. That said, with continued funding by Canonical, they like would have progressed differently (likely more).

Firefox OS and webOS are still around under different names, which are Capyloon [1] and LuneOS respectively [2].

[0]: https://ubuntu-touch.io/

[1]: https://capyloon.org/

[2]: https://webos-ports.org/wiki/Main_Page

Interesting, I had thought KaiOS was the last remnant of FFOS.

I wonder which of these projects is most active at this time.

Firefox OS was built from a lot of Android internals.

WebOS!

Windows Phone was always destined to fall. There is no scenario in which Windows Phone would not been beaten into irrelevance by Google and by Microsoft's own actions in undermining their underwhelming and unpopular mobile OS.

Well, this thread is in the parallel universe in which Google would have sold only its own Android devices. So no Android + LG, Sony, Samsung, Huawei, etc.

If you look at Google's hardware's capabilities, Android would have flopped immediately.

As bad as the org level issues were with Windows Phone, it would have still beaten Android-on-Google-hardware-only.

Microsoft actually charged a license fee for Windows Phone OS which is just one of many reasons OEM's abandoned the OS. Google also would have undercut their licensing fees to ensure their failure. Additionally, the absence of any Google apps would have also ensured a quick death for Windows Phone. Its failure was inevitable and justified for what they did to their customers and OEM's.

In this hypothetical Android apps are far less relevant with that ecosystem only being present on Google phones.

I wonder without AOSP or some other major FOSS mobile operating system to shake things up, if smartphones would be more like the PDA industry in the 1990s, with proprietary OS's from OEMs competing with each other. Maybe Palm sticks around and webOS gets a long lease on life. Maybe Samsung, Intel, the Linux Foundation, and co. try to get mass adoption of Tizen, with hilarious results. Though perhaps if Nokia sticks around, MeeGo as based on the Harmattan design in the N9 gets wider use, delaying the need for a successor like Tizen. In any case, with only Apple and Microsoft as their mobile competitors and without Android devices cutting at their margins, BlackBerry still has a fighting chance.

Windows phone was destined to fail mainly because they were the third to show up to a two-man race. If Android never showed up, or completely biffed it at the starting line, then Windows Phone probably could have succeeded with enough time.

The other possible alternative is Palm WebOS, but I think they were too Apple-like for their own good. The key differentiators that helped Android succeed as an iPhone alternative (wide device variety, more "open" platform) apply much more easily to Windows Phone.

In my opinion Windows Phone had a lot of promise, which I think was definitely tied to solid hardware Nokia was making at the time. Microsoft pretty much made it impossible for meaningful apps to be developed by the average joe though (Read: API restrictions) and I think that really helped Windows Phone become obsolete.

I think Google would have killed off Android before it could really take off if they went that route. Early Android was very rough compared to iPhoneOS, and one of its biggest selling points was the variety of hardware you could get it on. Early successful devices like the Motorola Droid and HTC Evo 4G were important to solidifying Android as a serious smartphone platform. This strategy allowed Google to focus on improving the software while experienced hardware manufacturers did what they already do best.

Maybe Nokia would have stuck around unmerged and there would have been hope for the very polished MeeGo build seen on the Nokia N9.

Not to mention BlackBerry and webOS still being contenders.

I'm still bitter about Windows Phone. Nokia's hardware was great, Windows Phone was great, but only Microsoft Partners had permission to access the low level APIs that mattered...effectively neutering app development.

DMA may be coming soon and would most likely affect Apple too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act

> The list of obligations would include prohibitions on combining data collected from two different services belonging to the same company (e.g. Facebook and WhatsApp);

Would this not simply kill the kind of integration that Apple has between its different services? Or any of the smart assistants?

This is true, but the case for the acceptance of Android in the Market was that its was and open-platform and open-source. This is what gave it legs despite its early questionable software and hardware merits (the mantra being that you can fix it yourself!). The slow moving EU, a decade++ later is on target from this point of view. ....

Android is not really all that open anymore, at least not in the sense that it was in 2010 when AOSP was basically just a de-Googled Android. The AOSP today is more like Darwin is to macOS than Chromium is to Chrome.

I think today's ruling reflects this, as much of it has to do with how Google handles the licensing of their proprietary Android bits.

Not even necessarily the "market" of consumers, but more specifically the market of manufacturers.

Theoretically, yes. But I am confident the EU would find other ways to extract fines from Google in that case.

“Extract fines” makes it sound like the EU is the evil one here, rather than Google abusing its position.

The world is not a child's cartoon. It can be simultaneously true that Google is a scummy monopolist and the EU is not acting in good faith.

It's acting in good faith insofar as it does care about establishing transparent markets (and also protecting citizen privacy). It's fortunate (at least for itself) that these ambitions are entirely consistent with political expediency - which means they can pursue them without reserve.

If an EU company did similar it might not be hit so hard (which would be hypocritical). But that doesn't make this action (a fine for obviously anticompetitive action) in bad faith, so much as it would make the other (lack of fine) so.

If you're accusing others of acting in bad faith you need to substantiate that. With a proper argument. Otherwise you're not acting in good faith yourself.

I wouldn’t use the term bad faith but it’s clear the EU wants American big tech out

The EU very regularly fines European companies. AFAIK there is no statistics showing a preference towards investigating American companies. Though that is certainly the case for large software companies, simply by due to the fact that there are more of them and with larger revenues than European ones.

Have you any evidence, numerical or otherwise, to substantiate your assertion?

The EU doesn't want big tech out. It wants big tech abusers out.

And guess what, most of those big tech abusers are American.

But if it helps with anything, it doesn't look too kindly upon Chinese companies, either.

It can't really do much about European big tech companies since there aren't that many left... and they're in enterprise markets where things work completely differently (enterprises can sue you themselves very efficiently if they're disadvantaged, thank you very much).

Yes, but this Google. They are far away from having consumers as their top priority.

And this is EU, which mostly does have them as top priority.

As a counterexample there's Apple with not insignificant market share in Europe - pushing icloud, not supporting third party operating sysems or even sideloading, still keeping proprietary connector despite everyone else using usb-c, etc.

At the first Google search (irony) I found that apple is maybe around 30% maybe (depending on the source) a bit hight than Samsung which is pretty close. but when looking at iOS vs Android then we have 30% (iOS) vs 60% (Android).

this does not look at all even close to a monopoly from Apple.

As far as I see their power in Europe comes from the fact that competition is following them in some decisions.

For sure my recently bought iPad and Apple Watch use USB-C, so I think that part is not true. Arguably due to EU legislation.

Yet the all new iphone 14 still uses lightning and I bet you and most apple watch owners also own an iphone.

Which kind of begs the question about the differences between a "walled garden" in a way to protect their users and what exactly amounts to anti-competitive business practices.

Windows phones tried the Apple approach if I remember correctly when their phones were on the market and it wasn't enough to keep them competitive. They had a litany of other issues to boot, but taking the "walled garden" approach raised the ire of many developers.

Or they could have written their licensing agreements in a way that doesn’t violate antitrust law.

Apple has lots of partners, but Foxconn and Pegatron make phones for many companies.

I don't think we would still be talking about Android today if Google went down that path.

I think in this alternate universe, Windows Phone may have actually succeeded.

If you look at their in house phones the odds are that this would actually have tanked android entirely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com