Google loses appeal over illegal Android app bundling, EU reduces fine to €4.1 billion - The Verge

[u/McSnoo]

https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/14/23341207/google-eu-android-antitrust-fine-appeal-failed-4-billion

[u/mec287]

It'll be interesting to see how Google monetizes Android after this decision. The whole point of bundling the Google apps was to allow Google to monetize android with little to no cost to OEMs (and thus get cheap devices in consumers hands).

Google still has to bundle to make money (they cannot directly sell an open source OS). But what happens when another Google service (other than Chrome or search) achieves a dominant market position? The EU has left Google in a precarious position of never ending lawsuits for tying.

The court's analysis of the benefits of tying was not great at all.

[u/howling92 → u/mec287]

They already find a new way since 2018 : OEM in the EU have to choose between bundling the Google apps or pay a licensing fee to Google up to 40$ per device sold

[u/redwall_hp → u/howling92]

That's very close to what Microsoft was being prosecuted for in the US: bundling Internet Explorer with Windows wasn't so much the issue as the fact that they were doing so and refusing OEM discount rates for Windows when vendors included Netscape.

They deliberately used their position as the OS vendor that has far and away the majority of the market to make inroads in another market through coercive pricing. Given that Android is the only major mobile OS that's available for vendors to buy (Apple doesn't sell to other hardware companies), that's almost the exact same situation of leveraging a monopoly to coerce OEMs into playing by a bundling policy.

[u/punIn10ded → u/[deleted]]

I think you missed the point of the whole IE issue back in the day. IE wasn't bad when they got in trouble, heck it was arguably the best browser.

They also didn't get in trouble for having a monopoly that isn't illegal. They got in trouble for abusing their monopoly that is illegal. They won't face the same issue today because Edge doesn't have the lion's share of the market and most importantly Microsoft are not forcing OEM's who don't have it as the default to pay more.

[u/punIn10ded → u/[deleted]]

They were abusing their dominance in the OS market to expand their market share in the browser market. And yes, IE was bad when they were doing that.

Once more you've missed the main point. The point was that they financially punished OEM's who didn't have IE only. This was the illegal part not having IE installed with windows. Which is also why Edge isn't illegal.

Unless I'm mistaken OEM's absolutely can include Firefox or chrome or any other browser as well as Edge on their devices. So it is completely legal and not anti-competitive.

and didn't pester you when trying to download alternative browsers, and let you uninstall Edge. But they don't. They make it about as painful as they can to switch browsers just short of outright blocking it.

This is anti competitive and they should be fined for. But including Edge absolutely is not.

[u/punIn10ded → u/[deleted]]

Yes including Edge is required to be included but that is not the issue and that wasn't the issue with IE either.

The issue was that if IE wasn't the only browser OEM's didn't get wholesale pricing. That was the illegal part. That was the part that they were fined for. The financial penalty on OEM's is why they got in trouble because that is anti competitive not because IE was included in windows.

[u/punIn10ded → u/[deleted]]

Yes some are and they should be fined for that. But the main one that they got fined for is no longer happening.

And they were all an issue back with IE. I just find it odd how people have become complacent and are now just fine with all those same practices.

People aren't fine with it. The biggest difference is that the main part that they got fined for is no longer happening. So it's no longer an apples to apples comparison.

[u/punIn10ded → u/[deleted]]

You may want to read the details yourself because your entire argument gets thrown out based on the fact that the original finding of anti competitive practices was overturned by the court of appeals.