[antr]

This fine isn't about monopoly. But Google:

- has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);

- made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and

- has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

[ummonk]

- has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

This is the most clearly anti-competitive practice.

[beerlord]

I would argue that its actually pro-consumer - because if I was Google's CEO, I would just shut down AOSP, and wish that I had done it years ago, in relation to this ruling.

Google supports AOSP and has done so for years, making it available freely. Why shouldn't they be able to dictate their own terms? If phone makers don't like it, they can make their own OS (which they have - and they all suck).

[redial]

This is why:

> Google has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

Hence the fine.

You cannot have something open and control it at the same time.

[simongray]

Yes, it is. Straight from the press release:

> Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets.

> Google has engaged in three separate types of practices, which all had the aim of cementing Google's dominant position in general internet search.

[antr]

You said it "Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules." It isn't about a monopoly, it's about abusing power.

[zaroth]

It’s about abusing the power of a monopolistic position in the market. The power being abused is the monopoly power.

If you don’t have a monopoly and do things your partners/competitors don’t like, they can’t complain that you are abusing a dominant market position to get away with it.

There’s nothing wrong with bundling. But when you have a monopoly on the market bundling suddenly is wrong and abusive even if it’s the right thing for your end users.

So we see time and again monopolies are knee-capped in the market and face these absurd fines, in the name of fairness and competition.

I have no doubt that some monopolies leverage their market dominance for some pretty atrocious dealings. I personally see nothing wrong with Google licensing the optional (but extremely popular) Google Play services such that it requires Google Search and Chrome along with it.

If they were unrelated then the experience of Google Play Services would be identical with or without the other pieces (Chrome and Search). I don’t use Android so I can’t say for sure, but I’m quite confident that the overall experience suffers without all three pieces together.

[IanCal]

> If they were unrelated then the experience of Google Play Services would be identical with or without the other pieces (Chrome and Search). I don’t use Android so I can’t say for sure, but I’m quite confident that the overall experience suffers without all three pieces together.

The EU text talks about requiring chrome and search if the play store is installed. As a user of android, I cannot think of any way in which these are linked. I don't see why the play store wouldn't work without those two, or would even lose a single feature.

I suggest reading this:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm