EU upholds Google’s €4.1 billion fine for bundling search with Android

Google will have to pay the EU's biggest fine ever.

Read the whole story

 

[WXW]

EU is being nice to Google. The ceiling is 10% of the annual turnover.

I wouldn't call a $4.1 billion fine nice, I think it's a steep as they dared to make it, considering that Google is going to be looking at the cost of paying this fine vs how much money the EU actually makes them on an annual basis, and decide if it's worth the cost of doing business in the future. For reference, Google had in the entire EMEA region (Europe, Middle East, and Africa) had a combined revenue of $17.1 billion in FY 2021-2022, so if we figure the EU is the vast majority of that but not all of it, this fine is probably equal to about a quarter of everything Google is pulling out of the EU before taxes and operating expenses are calculated. That is an incredibly steep fine. I have no idea if this puts Google's EMEA region in the red or not, I doubt it, but it's more than a trim to the bottom line, it's practically shortened by a head. If the EU hit them with the biggest possible fine, you're looking at Google losing half their revenue from the EU to a single fine. I very much doubt they'd be eager to keep doing business in a region that just cut its total revenue in half with a single fine.

Google can definitely settle up since they have way more revenue to pull from than just this one region, but the question is whether they want to. The fine isn't even the end of it. They have to comply with regulation or they'll be fined again, and again. Complying is going to cost them money, too. Less than another fine, for sure, but this also impacts the revenue the fine is being taken out of, which hurts the bottom line even more.

I do not think the EU wants to chase Google out, so I think this fine was calculated to be as large as possible without pushing them into desperately abandoning the EU due to it no longer being profitable. We'll just have to see if Google responds the way they expect.

"Half their revenue" may sound like a lot, but it's "half their revenue for a single year", which is an absolutely different thing. If you take the amount of money they've made until today, plus the expected for the next years (assuming they just don't keep breaking laws every month), I think they'll be just fine...

 

[WXW]

First, Google bundles Google Chrome and Search with Android.

The second unlawful restriction [...] Google app license instantly revoked.

OK. So the first illegal thing is putting their app on the OS; and the second illegal thing is not putting their app on the OS.

I know I'm glossing over must-vs-may-vs-cannot; but still.

No, you are glossing over the whole text of the two paragraphs, which don't say at all what you wrote. (Edit: I'm not trying to be harsh, I'm just saying that you didn't seem to understand what the text actually says).

Here's the thing. This isn't an OS with a bundled search engine. This is a search engine with a bundled OS. Android is not self-funded. It's paid for by revenue from those google apps.

If you actually succeed... you risk the baby (free phone OS) with the bathwater.

What's the goal?

Is the goal that we move a bunch of things around but Google remains dominant? That seems like "no change.

Is the goal that we create a market where Google ceases to be dominant, perhaps becoming entirely gone as it gets out-competed? OK. Where does the OS come from then? Is there an appetite for purchasing an OS with money, like you do for Windows?

I mean: I'd be up for that; but I don't think the general populous is going to go quietly into paying for the sorts of stuff they've been getting for free.

The goal is not that Google remains or ceases to be dominant, the goal is to allow competition. It may or may not appear, and Google may or may not remain dominant, but that's not relevant.

 

[WXW]

I have to say, my main problem with the arguments for apple not taking advantage of a dominant position is the ecosystem in the first place. Apple uses the dominant position of the iPhone and thus IOS to have a complete control on the software running on them. This dominant position is what allows them to impose the app store as the only choice on IOS, to impose any app code to go through their hands before an app czn be published, and that allows them to copy promising software, even using that very system to stiffle protest. Apple has complete monopoly on the iphone, which wouldn't be considered dominant if it wasn't so popular. If you consider google's control over android's distribution a problem, then you should consider apple's control over their ecosystem a problem too. The medium is different (google is software-only while apple is hardware and software), but the result is the same. Apple has complete control over the life qnd death of any company on nearly half of the world's smartphones.

Ignoring the other arguments, Apple's market share worldwide is just around 15.6%, not 50%, if that's relevant.

 

[Eldorito]

Why is Google held to such a high standard of openness when Apple isn’t? Is it simply because more android devices exist? Or is it because Android is marketed as Open and therefore has different rules?

Apple isn't pushing anyone to use Apple search. They haven't really monetised anything in iOS outside of the app store (and there are lawsuits brewing there already, Apple hasn't missed out there yet), so it's not really comparable.

The EU isn't going after Google for bundling Chrome, but the whole search thing. Apple isn't doing the same.

Agreed the practices are different when looking at Apple, but what about Microsoft? I have never fully agreed on the EU strong take on "choice uppon install time" for the IE probe.

But then, from a consumer standpoint: is it really unnexpected that an Android phone would come bundled with Google Search, which by itself is *not* a free service _and_ is developed by the same company? Was it so surprising that Windows came bundled with IE? And what does that have to do with limiting user choices?

Maybe it is my lack of understanding but the EU take on this matter seems to me like over the top drama. I never got why bundling software has impaired user choice in such a harmful way to justify huge fines...

The problem isn't that Google is bundling (nor was that the problem with Microsoft), but Google is using their market power to force the outcome they want. That's the thing with antitrust cases, it's never a single, specific action. It's about the overall behaviour and intended outcome.

The key point in the complaint with Microsoft wasn't that they included a browser, it was that they did everything in their power to keep it the default browser. They argued that it was literally impossible to separate the browser from the OS at the time, they didn't follow web standards, they were intent on controlling the web. They had a history of market abuse too, which likely didn't help their arguments that they were just innocently adding a browser to help users.

The browser choice thing was a bit weird, but it wasn't the only thing that happened from that case. Microsoft showed they can carve IE out of the OS, you can entirely uninstall Edge if you want. Microsoft is very compliant with web standards, we went through a phase where browsers all competed to show who was the most compliant, it was great.

If consumers want Google search, then that's fine, they can use it. OEMs can willfully bundle in all the Google apps and most will. There's no requirement that everyone gets equal market share here, if Google acted fairly then they would still own the ecosystem tomorrow. However it's about strangling competition before it pops up. Google is using their stranglehold over OEMs to force their behaviour, it's much less about consumers in this case. All those OEMs have no choice but to bend to Google's will.

Apple is different because Apple doesn't have OEMs, they're not using their market power to do much of anything, they sell a wildly popular device. There's not a market for buying iPhones, installing a bunch of new software and selling it again. They don't profit from someone using Safari. Their argument that no one else can install a full browser due to security reasons is a weak one, but at the same time they're not the dominate market force in browsers so there's little antitrust issues to look at.

 

[Gerash]

Why is Google held to such a high standard of openness when Apple isn’t? Is it simply because more android devices exist? Or is it because Android is marketed as Open and therefore has different rules?

Google isn’t held to a high standard by EU. Microsoft, yelp and a bunch of others lobby a bunch of European bureaucrats in Brussels and they happily fine Americans in their courts billions of dollars. It’s not like EU had a certain set of principles and Google is the only one that doesn’t abide by those principles. Look at Apple, you can’t get any more anti competitive than that but they don’t have any company bank rolling lawsuits against them

 

[Gerash]

Why is Google held to such a high standard of openness when Apple isn’t? Is it simply because more android devices exist? Or is it because Android is marketed as Open and therefore has different rules?

Apple isn't pushing anyone to use Apple search. They haven't really monetised anything in iOS outside of the app store (and there are lawsuits brewing there already, Apple hasn't missed out there yet), so it's not really comparable.

The EU isn't going after Google for bundling Chrome, but the whole search thing. Apple isn't doing the same.

Are you on Apple payroll or do you own AAPL?

Otherwise, have you ever used an iPhone? It comes bundled with Apple services from Maps, Safari, search (Siri knowledge) and you cannot change shit

 

[Snarky Robot]

Google isn’t held to a high standard by EU. Microsoft, yelp and a bunch of others lobby a bunch of European bureaucrats in Brussels and they happily fine Americans in their courts billions of dollars. It’s not like EU had a certain set of principles and Google is the only one that doesn’t abide by those principles. Look at Apple, you can’t get any more anti competitive than that but they don’t have any company bank rolling lawsuits against them

So all of Google’s legal issues are because:
- other large companies lobby EU officials (but Google doesn’t???)
- the bureaucrats are happy to go after Americans;
- the bureaucrats don’t have principles; and
- Apple bad

Cool.

 

[Snarky Robot]

Are you on Apple payroll or do you own AAPL?

Otherwise, have you ever used an iPhone? It comes bundled with Apple services from Maps, Safari, search (Siri knowledge) and you cannot change shit

As noted by others with functional higher brain functions, this isn’t “Google is being punished even though Apple is worse”. This is “Google is being punished for specific things that Apple literally cannot do based on their business model”.

Google actively prevented ANY company from making non-Google Android phones if they wanted Google Play. Apple cannot do that. Why? Because it is the only company making iPhones. The EU rules do not require that every software must be available by devices from multiple companies. Therefore, Apple simply can’t violate the way Google did.

Apple also sells hardware and software as a single stack. You cannot run iOS on non-Apple devices, and your Apple devices cannot run anything other than iOS. Definitionally, it’s a single product. Android…isn’t. Android is open-source software. So the “product” Google is accused of breaking the law with isn’t “Android, the operating system”, it’s “the Google apps and services they sell”. Google wants to bundle everything together, and use the popularity of their platform to force OTHER COMPANIES to do what they want, despite the fact that they theoretically have options. Apple doesn’t have other OEMs to force to do things. Again, they cannot violate the way that Google did.

Now, as I said earlier, I think the “bundle” argument is mostly bullshit and that bundling those things is actually good. Search, maps, mail, and all the Google “sauce” that most people rely on should be a single bundle. But it’s also clear that Google did use the threat of losing access to Google Play (which effectively kills a device in the US) to gain prominence, despite the fact that OEMs could desire to customize their phones by having their own apps featured. That should be a separate negotiation.

More basically…Apple isn’t the market leader in search, browsers, and OS sales. Google is, hence scrutiny.

“But but but but Apple” is a child’s argument.

 

[omarsidd]

Eh. The EU complaint is sort of silly in that a functional bundled product is what people want-- a few people in our audience probably want to play with a bare phone and think Firefox OS and DuckDuckGo are the perfect combo... But I'd wager a very substantial percentage of consumers simply want a solution that works.

Trying to integrate very random 3rd party products that don't have much market share for a reason is going to make that solution less functional. Confusion to everybody's detriment. Google apps are buggy enough these days without trying to integrate other people's even worse code.

Also, Apple. Microsoft. Really seems like this is a fund-raising move on the EU's part, or a bit of a bone to pick with google.

Being able to fork android for other purposes is useful, though. But the rest of this is long-term harmful, much like the US efforts to require sideloading...

 

[Eldorito]

Why is Google held to such a high standard of openness when Apple isn’t? Is it simply because more android devices exist? Or is it because Android is marketed as Open and therefore has different rules?

Apple isn't pushing anyone to use Apple search. They haven't really monetised anything in iOS outside of the app store (and there are lawsuits brewing there already, Apple hasn't missed out there yet), so it's not really comparable.

The EU isn't going after Google for bundling Chrome, but the whole search thing. Apple isn't doing the same.

Are you on Apple payroll or do you own AAPL?

Otherwise, have you ever used an iPhone? It comes bundled with Apple services from Maps, Safari, search (Siri knowledge) and you cannot change shit

It's also comes bundled with a touchscreen, what's your point?

Did you even read my post? Particularly the bit where I said "The EU isn't going after Google for bundling Chrome". It's even in the headline of the EU ruling:

The General Court largely confirms the Commission’s decision that Google imposed unlawful restrictions on manufacturers of Android mobile devices and mobile network operators in order to consolidate the dominant position of its search engine

Maybe the EU owns Apple shares and it's why they're going after Google. But I don't (nor do I work for them). But maybe you should relax on calling someone a shill and maybe think about if you missed something in the complexity of the arrangement here.

 

[graylshaped]

"They need money, that's why they fine rich US companies."
.

They may not 'need' the money. But I'm sure they 'want' it.

Is that similar to the situation when the USA 'wanted' Volkswagen money?

You mean when Volkswagon deliberately installed software to fake emission results?

 

[graylshaped]

If manufacturers don't bundle Google's apps, Google will charge as much as $40 per phone in the EU

Pyrrhic victory for the consumer. Google gets to do what it used and the EU gets some cash

That's why competition can be a good thing. With Apple already on the scene... but also the likes of Samsung, Huawei, etc., etc. bringing more apps to market (cause not everyone wants to pay $40 for formerly "free" Google apps) - this may not be just a pyrrhic victory for us consumers.

The $40 would just be rolled into the cost of the entire phone, so most people won't ever even know about it.

Let's check your math. First quarter of this year, Samsung--just as one example--reported profits just over $11 billion. Over the past several years, they sell roughly 70 million phones every quarter. At $40 a pop, that whacks that $11 billion dollars down to around $8. Now, you and I would be happy with $8 billion, but that is not how business works. Cutting profits by close to 30% would result in Samsung's share price getting hammered.

The more niche Android-based manufacturers would probably be pushed out of business.

Oh, can I do a counter-check?

A) For 2021, as far as I can find, Samsung shipped 15.9m phones into Europe as a whole for the year (I'm not sure how it breaks down farther than that for the EU specifically).

B) The hypothetical $40 fee would be exclusively for phones shipped in the EU, so not on Samsung's global shipments of ~70m per quarter.

C) My phrasing was not meant to imply that manufacturers would just eat the cost, but that phones in the EU would simply be, you know, ~$40 more.

Also, niche manufacturers are just as free as big ones to raise their prices to account for costs. That's, uh, business.

How would Google know if a phone was aimed at the EU?

Either they license Android for free and bundle the software--which we all need to realize will just get the EU right back in Google's grill--or they pay $40 for every fucking phone they ship.

Think it through.

 

[WXW]

Eh. The EU complaint is sort of silly in that a functional bundled product is what people want-- a few people in our audience probably want to play with a bare phone and think Firefox OS and DuckDuckGo are the perfect combo... But I'd wager a very substantial percentage of consumers simply want a solution that works.

Trying to integrate very random 3rd party products that don't have much market share for a reason is going to make that solution less functional. Confusion to everybody's detriment. Google apps are buggy enough these days without trying to integrate other people's even worse code.

Also, Apple. Microsoft. Really seems like this is a fund-raising move on the EU's part, or a bit of a bone to pick with google.

Being able to fork android for other purposes is useful, though. But the rest of this is long-term harmful, much like the US efforts to require sideloading...

I see nothing saying that EU has forbidden manufacturers from bundling any software, including Google's software, so I'm not sure what you are even talking about.

You know the reason other 3rd party products don't have much market share? Because of extreme anticompetitive practices by Google and others over the years. That doesn't benefit consumers, but those companies.

 

[Scribit]

The issues of bundling and restrictive OEM contracts are mirrors of the issues that previously brought fines and court oversight to Microsoft's door.

And just as many Microsoft engineers have joined other tech companies so did a number of Microsoft's antitrust and compliance folks. Some of these are at Google, so I have no doubt that Google knew it was in violation of antitrust laws. Google likely made a business desision to ignore this to maximize profit and market share which, ethics aside, was probably a good business/ share holder value desision.

But finally Google is being penalized for this. There should be no surprise that the EU is doing this and upholding their antitrust regulations, the bigger issue should be why aren't the US and States AGs also doing so.

 

[Oliver Weichhold]

4 billion is a joke for Alphabet Group. That amount will just be filed under "operating expenses".

 

[WXW]

Oh, can I do a counter-check?

A) For 2021, as far as I can find, Samsung shipped 15.9m phones into Europe as a whole for the year (I'm not sure how it breaks down farther than that for the EU specifically).

B) The hypothetical $40 fee would be exclusively for phones shipped in the EU, so not on Samsung's global shipments of ~70m per quarter.

C) My phrasing was not meant to imply that manufacturers would just eat the cost, but that phones in the EU would simply be, you know, ~$40 more.

Also, niche manufacturers are just as free as big ones to raise their prices to account for costs. That's, uh, business.

How would Google know if a phone was aimed at the EU?

Either they license Android for free and bundle the software--which we all need to realize will just get the EU right back in Google's grill--or they pay $40 for every fucking phone they ship.

Think it through.

They know because the manufacturers tell them. As I said previously, the fee is dependent on country and type of device: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/179 ... sing-terms

documents reveal the deal with EU manufacturers will be rated by country

So, no, it's not "$40 for every fucking phone they ship", that's not how it works.

 

[fknuckles]

Why is Google held to such a high standard of openness when Apple isn’t? Is it simply because more android devices exist? Or is it because Android is marketed as Open and therefore has different rules?

Google isn’t held to a high standard by EU. Microsoft, yelp and a bunch of others lobby a bunch of European bureaucrats in Brussels and they happily fine Americans in their courts billions of dollars. It’s not like EU had a certain set of principles and Google is the only one that doesn’t abide by those principles. Look at Apple, you can’t get any more anti competitive than that but they don’t have any company bank rolling lawsuits against them

Weird spin, but I believe someone has already quoted the fines that the US levied on VW, which isn't an American company. There's also pretty heavy fines that the US has levied on the UK's Barclays in the past.

Do you think it was because of law-breaking or lobbying by competitors?

 

[fknuckles]

4 billion is a joke for Alphabet Group. That amount will just be filed under "operating expenses".

They have already changed behaviour though so the fine worked.

 

[graylshaped]

Oh, can I do a counter-check?

A) For 2021, as far as I can find, Samsung shipped 15.9m phones into Europe as a whole for the year (I'm not sure how it breaks down farther than that for the EU specifically).

B) The hypothetical $40 fee would be exclusively for phones shipped in the EU, so not on Samsung's global shipments of ~70m per quarter.

C) My phrasing was not meant to imply that manufacturers would just eat the cost, but that phones in the EU would simply be, you know, ~$40 more.

Also, niche manufacturers are just as free as big ones to raise their prices to account for costs. That's, uh, business.

How would Google know if a phone was aimed at the EU?

Either they license Android for free and bundle the software--which we all need to realize will just get the EU right back in Google's grill--or they pay $40 for every fucking phone they ship.

Think it through.

They know because the manufacturers tell them. As I said previously, the fee is dependent on country and type of device: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/179 ... sing-terms

documents reveal the deal with EU manufacturers will be rated by country

So, no, it's not "$40 for every fucking phone they ship", that's not how it works.

My daughter lives in the EU, and has bought devices there, or in the US, at her whim.

So, no.

Although, now, technically, she lives in the UK, but at the time...

 

[Plati]

Perfect. Now if they can go after Chrome encouraging websites to break for Firefox, we'll be a quarter of the way to almost having proper competition.

Don't bother sourcing your ridiculous claims, this is the internet after-all. You're fitting right in.

 

[FFabian]

"They need money, that's why they fine rich US companies."
.

They may not 'need' the money. But I'm sure they 'want' it.

Is that similar to the situation when the USA 'wanted' Volkswagen money?

You mean when Volkswagon deliberately installed software to fake emission results?

So when Volkswagen breaks the law they should pay a fine. Why shouldn't Google pay when they break EU law (again)?

When companies violate the laws of the country they operate in they'll pay a fine. Is there an exception for US companies breaking the law?

 

[FohENG]

Just wait until the EU finds out that AAPL has been stifling competition by not even allowing third party manufacturers to use their software!

That’s an idiotic take.

Apple doesn’t license iOS to third party vendors so it’s literally impossible for them to get into trouble by having contracts that force OEMs to bundle. The Google (Android) case is pretty much the same Microsoft (Windows) where Microsoft had restrictive contracts with companies if you wanted to use Windows.

I remember when OS/2 was still a thing and if a company like Dell sold a PC with OS/2 pre-installed they STILL had to pay a Windows license fee to Microsoft.

 

[Chemical Tribe]

Yandex.ru might have been using this option to get their search engine installed as default in some devices in the Russian market, but I don't know what the current sanctions mean for that arrangement.

Iirc Russia forced Google to have Yandex on their phones, even though Google isn't the dominant search engine.

 

[fknuckles]

Yandex.ru might have been using this option to get their search engine installed as default in some devices in the Russian market, but I don't know what the current sanctions mean for that arrangement.

Iirc Russia forced Google to have Yandex on their phones, even though Google isn't the dominant search engine.

I think it was on similar bundling grounds as this EU case: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/googl ... in-russia/

 

[Chemical Tribe]

Yandex.ru might have been using this option to get their search engine installed as default in some devices in the Russian market, but I don't know what the current sanctions mean for that arrangement.

Iirc Russia forced Google to have Yandex on their phones, even though Google isn't the dominant search engine.

I think it was on similar bundling grounds as this EU case: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/17/googl ... in-russia/

Yes, but it's hard to side with Russia when the person complaining has the dominant share by fiat.

 

[WXW]

Oh, can I do a counter-check?

A) For 2021, as far as I can find, Samsung shipped 15.9m phones into Europe as a whole for the year (I'm not sure how it breaks down farther than that for the EU specifically).

B) The hypothetical $40 fee would be exclusively for phones shipped in the EU, so not on Samsung's global shipments of ~70m per quarter.

C) My phrasing was not meant to imply that manufacturers would just eat the cost, but that phones in the EU would simply be, you know, ~$40 more.

Also, niche manufacturers are just as free as big ones to raise their prices to account for costs. That's, uh, business.

How would Google know if a phone was aimed at the EU?

Either they license Android for free and bundle the software--which we all need to realize will just get the EU right back in Google's grill--or they pay $40 for every fucking phone they ship.

Think it through.

They know because the manufacturers tell them. As I said previously, the fee is dependent on country and type of device: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/179 ... sing-terms

documents reveal the deal with EU manufacturers will be rated by country

So, no, it's not "$40 for every fucking phone they ship", that's not how it works.

My daughter lives in the EU, and has bought devices there, or in the US, at her whim.

So, no.

Although, now, technically, she lives in the UK, but at the time...

What has your daughter buying devices anywhere have to do with anything we are talking about?

 

[Sajuuk]

Oh, can I do a counter-check?

A) For 2021, as far as I can find, Samsung shipped 15.9m phones into Europe as a whole for the year (I'm not sure how it breaks down farther than that for the EU specifically).

B) The hypothetical $40 fee would be exclusively for phones shipped in the EU, so not on Samsung's global shipments of ~70m per quarter.

C) My phrasing was not meant to imply that manufacturers would just eat the cost, but that phones in the EU would simply be, you know, ~$40 more.

Also, niche manufacturers are just as free as big ones to raise their prices to account for costs. That's, uh, business.

How would Google know if a phone was aimed at the EU?

Either they license Android for free and bundle the software--which we all need to realize will just get the EU right back in Google's grill--or they pay $40 for every fucking phone they ship.

Think it through.

They know because the manufacturers tell them. As I said previously, the fee is dependent on country and type of device: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/179 ... sing-terms

documents reveal the deal with EU manufacturers will be rated by country

So, no, it's not "$40 for every fucking phone they ship", that's not how it works.

My daughter lives in the EU, and has bought devices there, or in the US, at her whim.

So, no.

Although, now, technically, she lives in the UK, but at the time...

What has your daughter buying devices anywhere have to do with anything we are talking about?

I think that they think the human ability to travel invalidates the very concept of regional pricing/licensing.

 

[graylshaped]

"They need money, that's why they fine rich US companies."
.

They may not 'need' the money. But I'm sure they 'want' it.

Is that similar to the situation when the USA 'wanted' Volkswagen money?

You mean when Volkswagon deliberately installed software to fake emission results?

So when Volkswagen breaks the law they should pay a fine. Why shouldn't Google pay when they break EU law (again)?

When companies violate the laws of the country they operate in they'll pay a fine. Is there an exception for US companies breaking the law?

Strawman, my friend. I find the EU Commission's shoot first and ask questions later approach inconsistent with my understanding of due process, but have no qualms with this decision. Google should pay.

 

[graylshaped]

Oh, can I do a counter-check?

A) For 2021, as far as I can find, Samsung shipped 15.9m phones into Europe as a whole for the year (I'm not sure how it breaks down farther than that for the EU specifically).

B) The hypothetical $40 fee would be exclusively for phones shipped in the EU, so not on Samsung's global shipments of ~70m per quarter.

C) My phrasing was not meant to imply that manufacturers would just eat the cost, but that phones in the EU would simply be, you know, ~$40 more.

Also, niche manufacturers are just as free as big ones to raise their prices to account for costs. That's, uh, business.

How would Google know if a phone was aimed at the EU?

Either they license Android for free and bundle the software--which we all need to realize will just get the EU right back in Google's grill--or they pay $40 for every fucking phone they ship.

Think it through.

They know because the manufacturers tell them. As I said previously, the fee is dependent on country and type of device: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/179 ... sing-terms

documents reveal the deal with EU manufacturers will be rated by country

So, no, it's not "$40 for every fucking phone they ship", that's not how it works.

My daughter bought a phone in the US and subsequently moved to the EU, so yes, that is how it works in some cases. In fact, after living in the EU for a while, she would often buy things, have them shipped to our house, then pick them up when she visited. VAT, and all...

 

[s73v3r]

Why is Google held to such a high standard of openness when Apple isn’t? Is it simply because more android devices exist? Or is it because Android is marketed as Open and therefore has different rules?

Apple isn't pushing anyone to use Apple search. They haven't really monetised anything in iOS outside of the app store (and there are lawsuits brewing there already, Apple hasn't missed out there yet), so it's not really comparable.

The EU isn't going after Google for bundling Chrome, but the whole search thing. Apple isn't doing the same.

Are you on Apple payroll or do you own AAPL?

Otherwise, have you ever used an iPhone? It comes bundled with Apple services from Maps, Safari, search (Siri knowledge) and you cannot change shit

Which OEM does Apple force to bundle their services on their device? Is it Samsung? Huawei? Motorola?

 

[s73v3r]

"They need money, that's why they fine rich US companies."
.

They may not 'need' the money. But I'm sure they 'want' it.

Is that similar to the situation when the USA 'wanted' Volkswagen money?

You mean when Volkswagon deliberately installed software to fake emission results?

So when Volkswagen breaks the law they should pay a fine. Why shouldn't Google pay when they break EU law (again)?

When companies violate the laws of the country they operate in they'll pay a fine. Is there an exception for US companies breaking the law?

Strawman, my friend. I find the EU Commission's shoot first and ask questions later approach inconsistent with my understanding of due process, but have no qualms with this decision. Google should pay.

No. Classifying things as that, without even attempting to learn about what kind of investigations they do is just bad faith. Seriously, do you honestly think someone rolled out of bed and decided, "I think I'll fine a company 4 billion euros today"?

 

[Sajuuk]

"They need money, that's why they fine rich US companies."
.

They may not 'need' the money. But I'm sure they 'want' it.

Is that similar to the situation when the USA 'wanted' Volkswagen money?

You mean when Volkswagon deliberately installed software to fake emission results?

So when Volkswagen breaks the law they should pay a fine. Why shouldn't Google pay when they break EU law (again)?

When companies violate the laws of the country they operate in they'll pay a fine. Is there an exception for US companies breaking the law?

Strawman, my friend. I find the EU Commission's shoot first and ask questions later approach inconsistent with my understanding of due process, but have no qualms with this decision. Google should pay.

Google has had 5+ years in court over this, so I'm genuinely curious about your definition for "due process".

 

[graylshaped]

Is that similar to the situation when the USA 'wanted' Volkswagen money?

You mean when Volkswagon deliberately installed software to fake emission results?

So when Volkswagen breaks the law they should pay a fine. Why shouldn't Google pay when they break EU law (again)?

When companies violate the laws of the country they operate in they'll pay a fine. Is there an exception for US companies breaking the law?

Strawman, my friend. I find the EU Commission's shoot first and ask questions later approach inconsistent with my understanding of due process, but have no qualms with this decision. Google should pay.

Google has had 5+ years in court over this, so I'm genuinely curious about your definition for "due process".

Using lawyers to delay a foregone conclusion does not obviate the lack of due process in declaring the foregone conclusion.

The EU has applied this practice to Apple, as well, announcing the results of an investigation when declaring they have initiated an investigation.

 

[DLJD]

Is that similar to the situation when the USA 'wanted' Volkswagen money?

You mean when Volkswagon deliberately installed software to fake emission results?

So when Volkswagen breaks the law they should pay a fine. Why shouldn't Google pay when they break EU law (again)?

When companies violate the laws of the country they operate in they'll pay a fine. Is there an exception for US companies breaking the law?

Strawman, my friend. I find the EU Commission's shoot first and ask questions later approach inconsistent with my understanding of due process, but have no qualms with this decision. Google should pay.

Google has had 5+ years in court over this, so I'm genuinely curious about your definition for "due process".

Using lawyers to delay a foregone conclusion does not obviate the lack of due process in declaring the foregone conclusion.

The EU has applied this practice to Apple, as well, announcing the results of an investigation when declaring they have initiated an investigation.

If it was a foregone conclusion then it was only so because Google was so clearly violating the rules that it was obvious what the likely result would be.

Google still had the chance to argue their case, it’s just that they didn’t actually have a case to argue in the first place. Hence over 5 years later, this is the result.

 

[s73v3r]

Is that similar to the situation when the USA 'wanted' Volkswagen money?

You mean when Volkswagon deliberately installed software to fake emission results?

So when Volkswagen breaks the law they should pay a fine. Why shouldn't Google pay when they break EU law (again)?

When companies violate the laws of the country they operate in they'll pay a fine. Is there an exception for US companies breaking the law?

Strawman, my friend. I find the EU Commission's shoot first and ask questions later approach inconsistent with my understanding of due process, but have no qualms with this decision. Google should pay.

Google has had 5+ years in court over this, so I'm genuinely curious about your definition for "due process".

Using lawyers to delay a foregone conclusion does not obviate the lack of due process in declaring the foregone conclusion.

No. I'm sick of this bad faith bullshit. Prove the "lack of due process".

 

[Scudroe]

I don't get it. Aren't both android and chrome free? Isn't search the only way Google profits from this? Does EU expect Google to charge money for Android and Chrome instead?

“But we don’t make money” is not an excuse. Using a dominant position (search, Android, whatever) to push another product (Chrome, search, or anything else) is anti-competitive. That some of them are free is neither here nor there. They chose to keep it free, and they are not entitled to their business model because of that.

If their business model does not work with a free Chrome, then yes, they need to sell it. And hopefully we’ll have a less insular browser as the dominant platform for the web.

So, if a company is not dominant but does exactly as Google is doing it's ok. But years down the road, if the same company then becomes dominant they are required to change their approach that has been perfectly legal all because they were successful. There is a problem with that. Instead, the EU and US should just apply all rules evenly to all companies regardless of being in a dominant position or not.

To abuse one’s dominant position requires broadly two components. Being abusive and well being dominant. Being a monopoly has a huge amount of benefits to the community incumbent from marketing to logistics to volume discounts on purchasing. The invisible hand works best when competition exists and large dominant companies have such a competitive advantage they damage that ideal.

Smaller companies can get fined for other sorts of market practices. But making public examples of large companies would make a better deterrent and probably also plays better to the constituents.

/ Not to go off on too much of a tangent here but:

There are gazillions of tax structures within multiple EU states explicitly designed to favour the emergence and maintenance of large conglomerates or manufacturing enterprises to the detriment of competition or new entrants.

There is a little bit of calibration of what constitutes market dominance that seems to favour hammering US giants operating in Europe - because they are big enough and dominant enough

But your basic explanation of the situation is spot on: you can only abuse a dominant position if you are in a dominant position

Edit: Ireland recently copied the most popular one (multi decade tax write offs against losses) with the result that the valuation of previously near-bust banks approximately doubled. It's an approach that effectively let's you run multi year losses if you are big enough, subsidised by a tax credit
(Yes, we are now, finally, close to as bad as everyone says on the corporate tax front, but playing by the same rules as our neighbors makes it ok)....

 

[WXW]

Oh, can I do a counter-check?

A) For 2021, as far as I can find, Samsung shipped 15.9m phones into Europe as a whole for the year (I'm not sure how it breaks down farther than that for the EU specifically).

B) The hypothetical $40 fee would be exclusively for phones shipped in the EU, so not on Samsung's global shipments of ~70m per quarter.

C) My phrasing was not meant to imply that manufacturers would just eat the cost, but that phones in the EU would simply be, you know, ~$40 more.

Also, niche manufacturers are just as free as big ones to raise their prices to account for costs. That's, uh, business.

How would Google know if a phone was aimed at the EU?

Either they license Android for free and bundle the software--which we all need to realize will just get the EU right back in Google's grill--or they pay $40 for every fucking phone they ship.

Think it through.

They know because the manufacturers tell them. As I said previously, the fee is dependent on country and type of device: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/179 ... sing-terms

documents reveal the deal with EU manufacturers will be rated by country

So, no, it's not "$40 for every fucking phone they ship", that's not how it works.

My daughter bought a phone in the US and subsequently moved to the EU, so yes, that is how it works in some cases. In fact, after living in the EU for a while, she would often buy things, have them shipped to our house, then pick them up when she visited. VAT, and all...

But that has nothing to do with anything, that makes no sense. What matters is where the devices are sold (and there are clear rules to know where the sale of physical goods takes place), not who buys them, or where they take them, or whether somebody brings devices bought elsewhere (I mean, what...?).

 

[mikecee]

Am I the only one that thinks this is kind of silly? Just like the Microsoft Windows browser one before, I don't understand why a company can't use their own product. If you don't like what they sell, you not only have an opportunity to not purchase the item, but you can even download another browser. A ballot screen doesn't do anything to fundamentally change what's going on here.

It does. Without compelling a default, it gives someone a chance to make a different choice, rather than unwind a default locked in earlier.

The hard part is looking under the hood at business models, and really parse out how different types of alleged lock-ins affect the consumer in tangible and intangible ways, short term and long term, and whether they have access to different choices at various places in their market journey affecting different aspects of how they want their marketplace activities tracked, monitored, and monetized.

We have two distinct business models in the mobile phone world today, and it is likely most people stick with what they know, rather than on the actual trade-offs they are making.

I type this with the B-52's Rock Lobstah in the background (coincidentally), which is relevant because its repetitiveness reflects (nice consonation there, I submit) how often we have this dialogue.

Now you forced me to say "play rock lobster video, chromecast, youtube", dammit! Google wins again.

Edit: I love the B-52's

 

[graylshaped]

Am I the only one that thinks this is kind of silly? Just like the Microsoft Windows browser one before, I don't understand why a company can't use their own product. If you don't like what they sell, you not only have an opportunity to not purchase the item, but you can even download another browser. A ballot screen doesn't do anything to fundamentally change what's going on here.

It does. Without compelling a default, it gives someone a chance to make a different choice, rather than unwind a default locked in earlier.

The hard part is looking under the hood at business models, and really parse out how different types of alleged lock-ins affect the consumer in tangible and intangible ways, short term and long term, and whether they have access to different choices at various places in their market journey affecting different aspects of how they want their marketplace activities tracked, monitored, and monetized.

We have two distinct business models in the mobile phone world today, and it is likely most people stick with what they know, rather than on the actual trade-offs they are making.

I type this with the B-52's Rock Lobstah in the background (coincidentally), which is relevant because its repetitiveness reflects (nice consonation there, I submit) how often we have this dialogue.

Now you forced me to say "play rock lobster video, chromecast, youtube", dammit! Google wins again.

Edit: I love the B-52's

But did you find the Family Guy version... ?

 

[Chemical Tribe]

If it was a foregone conclusion then it was only so because Google was so clearly violating the rules that it was obvious what the likely result would be.

Google still had the chance to argue their case, it’s just that they didn’t actually have a case to argue in the first place. Hence over 5 years later, this is the result.

I think what he's referring to is how the EU like comes to a conclusion then takes time to figure out the fine or something. It's different vs say how the US does things, I guess. It's not like the FTC started an investigation for Apple for their forbidding 3rd party dev tools, and when they relented, the FTC no longer was going to file a lawsuit.

In the end it makes no difference and basically is arguing bull shit semantics really.