Google must pay €4.1bn fine for using Android to 'block' rivals
www.bbc.com
A Google spokesperson said the judgement "fails to recognise" the firm's "significant investment to ensure Android remains open."
  • NateNate60@lemmy.worldEnglish
    35·
    4 months ago

    I definitely think Google is guilty of what the Commission has accused them of here, but I also can’t help but think: if pre-installing Google Search and Chrome are anti-competitive, why is Apple not guilty of the same thing? In fact, I’d argue that Apple is ten times worse in this regard because you actually can’t use any browser but Safari on iOS (all other browser apps are actually just re-skins of Safari under the hood). Does being a vertically-integrated company excuse such behaviour?

    • mschae@discuss.mschae23.deEnglish
      23·
      4 months ago

      why is Apple not guilty of the same thing?

      They are, I believe the commission has also been investigating apple for this. But it might also be considered a different situation since, as far as I understood, google was fined for pressuring other manufacturers into pre-installing google search and chrome on their devices.

      Apple is ten times worse in this regard because you actually can’t use any browser but Safari on iOS

      Well, WebKit, not safari (you could say safari is apple’s WebKit skin, I guess), but you’re right. The DMA was supposed to fix this and force them to allow other browser engines, but I don’t think much has changed in this regard. I’m not aware of any browsers not using WebKit on iOS so far, at least.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        BannedEnglish
        4·
        4 months ago

        Thank you for being corrective about the WebKit thing.

        I wish media and others would be more accurate when talking about browsers. All these “Chrome-based” browsers are not “based” on Chrome at all, they are just using Blink, the rendering engine, which Chrome/Chromium also uses. And Blink itself is based on/forked from WebKit, funny enough.

        • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          4 months ago

          I don’t get all the fuss about browsers. google and apple are really just trying to make sure everyone is using a KHTML based browser, out of the goodness of their heart, so it is good for everyone. KHTML is good. don’t fight against it.

          • Victor@lemmy.world
            BannedEnglish
            1·
            4 months ago

            Any particular reason why it’s “good for everyone”, or it just is?

            Diversity and non-monopoly is good.

            • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              4 months ago

              /s

              if it was just the rendering engine and not the entire base browser, removal of the APIs from chrome needed for ublock origin wouldn’t be that big of a deal.

    • dudeface@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      4 months ago

      They don’t license out their operating system to other companies or ever claimed it was open

      They may be guilty of similar things, but not quite the same

    • amateurcrastinator@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      4 months ago

      If you are old enough you might remember a similar fine for those nice search bars everyone was getting by default all over the place with every driver install and every program you downloaded. That was a fun time too!

  • MrSulu@lemmy.mlEnglish
    11·
    4 months ago

    It is relevant not economically but as a point of principle. The US companies have a certain comfort with fucking about without challenge.

  • devaly@ani.socialEnglish
    6·
    4 months ago

    Google will have to say “I’m sowwy” and pay 10 euros for comitting war crimes.

  • Dyskolos@lemmy.zipEnglish
    4·
    4 months ago

    “significant investment to ensure Android remains open, interoperable and free”.

    Haha. “Open” is history and “free” it never really was. The currency to use it was personal data.