50 ms·

This fine is plain stupid. Why EU doesn't fine Google for the same thing on Android. Android is in a monopoly position in EU and I do not saw any broswer choice

by brg1007 14y ago

This fine is plain stupid. Why EU doesn't fine Google for the same thing on Android. Android is in a monopoly position in EU and I do not saw any broswer choice screen when I first start my Android phone.

arethuza 14y ago
Android's 61% market share in Europe is hardly a monopoly: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-raises-market-share-to-53-ousting-android-from-top-spot-cm201499#.UTc3x1eaV8E http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-raises-market-share-to-5...
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
The browser choice option was merely one agreed solution to the problem that as owner of the ecosystem (windows) MA was not letting any other browsers in. The highly competitive marketplace for mobile devices gives you as a consumer a wide variety of choices of operating system, and each operating system (apart iOS) is adjusted by the operator to best fit their idea of market You can choose devices, you can choose different versions and setups of android. There is a competive market The fact that its not free as in speech is not the problem (it should be but)
tomp 14y ago
Well, the original ruling may have been stupid and might have become irrelevant by now. But the fine is very reasonable: MS didn't do what the courts ordered it to do. Plain and simple.
masklinn 14y ago
> Android is in a monopoly position in EU Not even close. It's in a majority position but nowhere near a monopoly. Although it can probably be considered to be a "dominant position", but then come the next part: 1. Has somebody complained 2. Is "Android" using its dominant position to distort the market
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
The browser choice option was merely one agreed solution to the problem that as owner of the ecosystem (windows) MA was not letting any other browsers in. The highly competitive marketplace for mobile devices gives you as a consumer a wide variety of choices of operating system, and each operating system (apart iOS) is adjusted by the operator to best fit their idea of market You can choose devices, you can choose different versions and setups of android. There is a competive market The fact that its not free as in speech is not the problem (it should be but)
martinced 14y ago
You're seriously confused as to what a monopoly is and what a monopoly implies. There's nothing wrong with having a monopoly. What is, however, illegal is to abuse your monopoly to keep and extend your monopoly to other domains. Btw Google / Android isn't near anywhere a monopoly in the smartphone / tablet market. What would be illegal would be, for example, Google using its search engine to eliminate any mention of the word "Apple" and of the "apple.com" domain or, worse, only allowing access to negative criticism of Apple products. But they aren't doing that (at least not that we know of). On the contrary MS has been officially judged has being a monopolist abusing its power to try to keep and extend its monopoly. Both in an US judgement and in an European judgement. Heck, even selling the Xbox at a loss for years and years while living on monopoly money is a dubious way to enter a market (but personally I wouldn't mind if MS faded into irrelevancy and had only its Xbox division doing fine ; )
- gjulianm 14y ago
  Google / Android + Chrome is not a monopoly in the same sense that Windows + Internet Explorer isn't neither. Maybe in other ways MS has abused its position, but not in IE. At least in my opinion. Why? Because IE was a default browser, all the OS have a default browser. Microsoft didn't prohibited anybody from installing another browser. If we consider that a monopoly and something punishable, then Android + Chrome is another monopoly. In EU, Android has over 61% market share [1]. And every Android comes with its default browser. And as your parent said, I don't see any ballot screen telling me to choose an alternative browser, but Google doesn't keep you from installing other browsers. Is the exact same situation. [1] http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-raises-market-share-to-53-ousting-android-from-top-spot-cm201499#.UTdBTXy92QY http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-raises-market-share-to-5...
  - brg1007 14y ago
    As gjulianm stated, Android is a monopoly in EU. So I do not see any valid argument that Android should be punished the same way as Microsoft is/was.
    - 14y ago

by brg1007 14y ago

arethuza 14y ago

Android's 61% market share in Europe is hardly a monopoly: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-raises-market-share-to-53-ousting-android-from-top-spot-cm201499#.UTc3x1eaV8E http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-raises-market-share-to-5...

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

The browser choice option was merely one agreed solution to the problem that as owner of the ecosystem (windows) MA was not letting any other browsers in. The highly competitive marketplace for mobile devices gives you as a consumer a wide variety of choices of operating system, and each operating system (apart iOS) is adjusted by the operator to best fit their idea of market You can choose devices, you can choose different versions and setups of android. There is a competive market The fact that its not free as in speech is not the problem (it should be but)

tomp 14y ago

Well, the original ruling may have been stupid and might have become irrelevant by now. But the fine is very reasonable: MS didn't do what the courts ordered it to do. Plain and simple.

masklinn 14y ago

> Android is in a monopoly position in EU Not even close. It's in a majority position but nowhere near a monopoly. Although it can probably be considered to be a "dominant position", but then come the next part: 1. Has somebody complained 2. Is "Android" using its dominant position to distort the market

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

martinced 14y ago

You're seriously confused as to what a monopoly is and what a monopoly implies. There's nothing wrong with having a monopoly. What is, however, illegal is to abuse your monopoly to keep and extend your monopoly to other domains. Btw Google / Android isn't near anywhere a monopoly in the smartphone / tablet market. What would be illegal would be, for example, Google using its search engine to eliminate any mention of the word "Apple" and of the "apple.com" domain or, worse, only allowing access to negative criticism of Apple products. But they aren't doing that (at least not that we know of). On the contrary MS has been officially judged has being a monopolist abusing its power to try to keep and extend its monopoly. Both in an US judgement and in an European judgement. Heck, even selling the Xbox at a loss for years and years while living on monopoly money is a dubious way to enter a market (but personally I wouldn't mind if MS faded into irrelevancy and had only its Xbox division doing fine ; )

gjulianm 14y ago
Google / Android + Chrome is not a monopoly in the same sense that Windows + Internet Explorer isn't neither. Maybe in other ways MS has abused its position, but not in IE. At least in my opinion. Why? Because IE was a default browser, all the OS have a default browser. Microsoft didn't prohibited anybody from installing another browser. If we consider that a monopoly and something punishable, then Android + Chrome is another monopoly. In EU, Android has over 61% market share [1]. And every Android comes with its default browser. And as your parent said, I don't see any ballot screen telling me to choose an alternative browser, but Google doesn't keep you from installing other browsers. Is the exact same situation. [1] http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-raises-market-share-to-53-ousting-android-from-top-spot-cm201499#.UTdBTXy92QY http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-raises-market-share-to-5...
- brg1007 14y ago
  As gjulianm stated, Android is a monopoly in EU. So I do not see any valid argument that Android should be punished the same way as Microsoft is/was.
  - 14y ago