Google loses challenge against EU antitrust decision, wins 5% fine cut(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Google loses challenge against EU antitrust decision, wins 5% fine cut
https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-courts-wed-ruling-record-44-bln-google-fine-may-set-precedent-2022-09-14/
142 comments
This ruling is not about the users. It is about Google pressuring manufacturers. This is completely different case.
> It's absolutely insane to me that the OS that actually allows users to install third party app stores and third party apps had an antitrust decision against it before Apple, who locks down there entire OS to users, did.
Just that this is not about the App Store, but an entirely different antitrust suit: This one is specifically about pressuring _device manufacturers_ and _mobile network operators_. It has nothing to do with the App Store policies, that is a different case. This one is specifically about:
> The Commission in its 2018 decision said Google used Android to cement its dominance in general internet search via payments to large manufacturers and mobile network operators and restrictions.
Just that this is not about the App Store, but an entirely different antitrust suit: This one is specifically about pressuring _device manufacturers_ and _mobile network operators_. It has nothing to do with the App Store policies, that is a different case. This one is specifically about:
> The Commission in its 2018 decision said Google used Android to cement its dominance in general internet search via payments to large manufacturers and mobile network operators and restrictions.
As a longtime iOS user, I entirely agree!
This is a whacko bananas thing to press without any hint of something similar for Apple yet. Dinging Google for making manufacturers carry Google Maps (or whatever) if they install the Google Play App store is like when we dinged Microsoft for bundling a browser, all while Apple still won't allow you to have another browser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
https://9to5mac.com/2022/03/01/web-developers-challenge-appl...
I tell family and friends about the webkit issue and every single one pulls out their browser of choice and says "nuh-uh, see here's the chrome app. what do you mean it's still the same?"
Imagine if Microsoft in the 90s started banning competitor software cause they may be "insecure" or "not private enough". Good grief, the only thing Google did wrong here was letting others manufacture Android phones.
The lesson to take away from the EU here is to never show weakness or willingness to compromise, or let anyone else into your playpen. No way Apple gives even an inch after this.
In my ideal world Google is dinged for this, and Apple gets the fattest fine known to man.
This is a whacko bananas thing to press without any hint of something similar for Apple yet. Dinging Google for making manufacturers carry Google Maps (or whatever) if they install the Google Play App store is like when we dinged Microsoft for bundling a browser, all while Apple still won't allow you to have another browser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
https://9to5mac.com/2022/03/01/web-developers-challenge-appl...
I tell family and friends about the webkit issue and every single one pulls out their browser of choice and says "nuh-uh, see here's the chrome app. what do you mean it's still the same?"
Imagine if Microsoft in the 90s started banning competitor software cause they may be "insecure" or "not private enough". Good grief, the only thing Google did wrong here was letting others manufacture Android phones.
The lesson to take away from the EU here is to never show weakness or willingness to compromise, or let anyone else into your playpen. No way Apple gives even an inch after this.
In my ideal world Google is dinged for this, and Apple gets the fattest fine known to man.
Except iOS doesn't have a market size that matters in Europe.
Android is the Windows of mobile OSes.
By the way that isn't how the law defines monopolies.
Android is the Windows of mobile OSes.
By the way that isn't how the law defines monopolies.
>By the way that isn't how the law defines monopolies.
Monopolies are always about defining the market. Here they went with licensable OS market, purposely leaving out Apple entirely.
>The Court agreed with the Commission's assessment that iPhone maker Apple (AAPL.O) was not in the same market and therefore could not be a competitive constraint against Android.
Kind of reinforcing my point that the EU in this case was watching out for businesses, not users. Your average user when asked to name an Android competitor would likely name Apple.
Monopolies are always about defining the market. Here they went with licensable OS market, purposely leaving out Apple entirely.
>The Court agreed with the Commission's assessment that iPhone maker Apple (AAPL.O) was not in the same market and therefore could not be a competitive constraint against Android.
Kind of reinforcing my point that the EU in this case was watching out for businesses, not users. Your average user when asked to name an Android competitor would likely name Apple.
> Monopolies are always about defining the market. Here they went with licensable OS market, purposely leaving out Apple entirely.
I find it bizarre they can slice and dice a market to a point where Android is a monopoly despite the face that competitors can fork Android for free and have done so eg. Huawei's HarmonyOS.
Would Google never licensing Android to EU firms have avoided this fine in the first place? I can't imagine they made that much money from EU business' licensing android.
I find it bizarre they can slice and dice a market to a point where Android is a monopoly despite the face that competitors can fork Android for free and have done so eg. Huawei's HarmonyOS.
Would Google never licensing Android to EU firms have avoided this fine in the first place? I can't imagine they made that much money from EU business' licensing android.
> Would Google never licensing Android to EU firms have avoided this fine in the first place?
This particular fine, possibly, but they’d get some other fine then, for something else. The process here is outcome oriented, not about law or fairness.
This particular fine, possibly, but they’d get some other fine then, for something else. The process here is outcome oriented, not about law or fairness.
Is that relevant here? I think the issue at hand is how Google leverages the app store to exert control over smartphone companies. The comparison to Apple doesn't make sense. Apple is the only company selling phones running iOS.
Wait, iOS has a solid 1/3 of the market in Europe. What am I missing?
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe
The other 2/3.
Competition law in Europe is absolutely not only about monopolies so I don’t see how the definition of one is relevant here.
This seems to be a very big fine ($4.12B), much bigger than any "cost of business" I can think of. What are the chances that google will actually have to pay it?
They could re-appeal [0] or play some other judicial trick. Or maybe they say "enough is enough" and don't pay it.
They have been appealing the €2.42 billion fine from July 2017 even now[1]. So I don't think that they have any intention to pay this much larger fine any time soon.
Google's stock is already doing bad this year and this will likely make it worse (although the early trading today hasn't shown any indication of a change.)
[0] "The company can still appeal the ruling in the EU’s highest court." - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/14/eu-court-backs-antitrust-rul...
[1] https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...
They could re-appeal [0] or play some other judicial trick. Or maybe they say "enough is enough" and don't pay it.
They have been appealing the €2.42 billion fine from July 2017 even now[1]. So I don't think that they have any intention to pay this much larger fine any time soon.
Google's stock is already doing bad this year and this will likely make it worse (although the early trading today hasn't shown any indication of a change.)
[0] "The company can still appeal the ruling in the EU’s highest court." - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/14/eu-court-backs-antitrust-rul...
[1] https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...
> Or maybe they say "enough is enough" and don't pay it.
That just leads to the appropriate government(s) seizing assets until the fines are covered. Even the biggest bigcorps aren't actually sovereign.
That just leads to the appropriate government(s) seizing assets until the fines are covered. Even the biggest bigcorps aren't actually sovereign.
Alphabet's EMEA revenue last year was $79.1B.
EMEA also includes the Middle East and Africa and some non-EU but still European countries, however the bulk of that revenue is realistically from the EU.
EMEA also includes the Middle East and Africa and some non-EU but still European countries, however the bulk of that revenue is realistically from the EU.
>This seems to be a very big fine ($4.12B),
It's not; Google's profit in 2021 was 76B, so that's about three weeks worth of profits. Anything below this wouldn't be even noticed by Google - to be effective those fees must hurt.
It's not; Google's profit in 2021 was 76B, so that's about three weeks worth of profits. Anything below this wouldn't be even noticed by Google - to be effective those fees must hurt.
I'm no Google, but three weeks of my total income would be a very big fine for me.
Not income, profit. Three weeks of income minus bills, food, other costs.
>Or maybe they say "enough is enough" and don't pay it.
Never thought of it this way. Does Google need European revenue more or do Europeans rely on Google more?
Never thought of it this way. Does Google need European revenue more or do Europeans rely on Google more?
It’s not only European revenue. If they leave the EU, the EU becomes a place where future competitors to their other revenue can grow.
Imagine Samsung (maybe not the best example, given their track record in software) stepping in with a fork of the open source parts of Android, to be sold in the EU.
That will be inferior to the full Android, but wouldn’t be killed by it because EU customers wouldn’t be able to choose it.
Over time, it could get closer to Android and, at some time, Samsung could start selling it successfully in Asia or the USA.
Imagine Samsung (maybe not the best example, given their track record in software) stepping in with a fork of the open source parts of Android, to be sold in the EU.
That will be inferior to the full Android, but wouldn’t be killed by it because EU customers wouldn’t be able to choose it.
Over time, it could get closer to Android and, at some time, Samsung could start selling it successfully in Asia or the USA.
When does a company actually become subject to EU jurisdiction? If they had closed all their offices, relocated all their employees, closed all their bank accounts in Europe before this case would a US court even be allowed to enforce this judgement?
Or they could play by the rules and still operate in the EU.
I tink they should also be fined 1% of the original fine per day, for failing to pay the fine and delaying as much as possible to on order to diminish the fines due to inflation.
I tink they should also be fined 1% of the original fine per day, for failing to pay the fine and delaying as much as possible to on order to diminish the fines due to inflation.
Would you be motivated to “play by the rules” if someone went to your store and told you they’d burn it down unless you paid them $10000 a month? This is a shakedown any way you look at it.
You are misrepresenting facts. This isn't some mafia doing racketeering, it's the EU enforcing antitrust regulation in court.
The ruling could probably not be applied. However, as someone above said, that choice would realistically cost them tens of billions each year, as well as fostering new competitors.
An angle to this is that even if you're gonna pay the fine in the end, there's a huge incentive to delay that, due to inflation. As long as your legal fees are lower than fine currency's inflation, you're better off delaying. E.g. we're close to 10% annual inflation in the euro area, and euro is also set to fall in relation to the dollar.
> This seems to be a very big fine
it does?
https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-faces-254-bln-dama...
it does?
https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-faces-254-bln-dama...
> They could re-appeal [0] or play some other judicial trick.
Civil law doesn't work like that. The legal code is clear and precise. When the allowed appeals are exhausted, there is no re-appealing, 'interpreting', twisting. Which is one reason why the proceedings of the Eu against Google et al are very effective.
Civil law doesn't work like that. The legal code is clear and precise. When the allowed appeals are exhausted, there is no re-appealing, 'interpreting', twisting. Which is one reason why the proceedings of the Eu against Google et al are very effective.
Dream on. Intel fought its $1B fine for directly screwing AMD for 13 years. Money on lawyers and bribes best spend, penalty cancelled.
https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/27/intel_eu_antitrust_fi...
https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/27/intel_eu_antitrust_fi...
The State Department and White House will likely intervene when the EU wants to start using fines as a revenue stream.
Google has been historically targeted by individuals in high ranking roles at the EU who have gone on record calling it their personal mission to harm US tech firms. There is a limit.
Google has been historically targeted by individuals in high ranking roles at the EU who have gone on record calling it their personal mission to harm US tech firms. There is a limit.
Every time there is a discussion of EU regulating an American firm for anything, a comment like this appears. I am really puzzled, what is the cause for this blatant nationalism - as an American you will never see any of this money, it's probably headed for a tax heaven.
The hypocracy is blatant too, USA regulates every business on it's soil without hesitation, often with asine laws like the Jones act.
When France introduced 3% tax on tech giants, US government lost their shit. They can set 100% tax if they please, if you don't like it, don't trade in France.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48947922
I think US State Department is quite aware that EU is one of the few institutions that is roughly their peer in economy and trade wat capability. They don't want to kick a hornets nest.
The hypocracy is blatant too, USA regulates every business on it's soil without hesitation, often with asine laws like the Jones act.
When France introduced 3% tax on tech giants, US government lost their shit. They can set 100% tax if they please, if you don't like it, don't trade in France.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48947922
I think US State Department is quite aware that EU is one of the few institutions that is roughly their peer in economy and trade wat capability. They don't want to kick a hornets nest.
Well, it’s not “anything” now, is it?
The specific findings of the commission and the court here go against any reasonable logic.
The EU seems to love kicking US tech firms while staying silent on anything China does. Ask German businesses who moved manufacturing to China and had their Intellectual property stolen from right in front of their eyes, only to have the EU play pussycat then.
Your comment could certainly use a bit more thought.
The specific findings of the commission and the court here go against any reasonable logic.
The EU seems to love kicking US tech firms while staying silent on anything China does. Ask German businesses who moved manufacturing to China and had their Intellectual property stolen from right in front of their eyes, only to have the EU play pussycat then.
Your comment could certainly use a bit more thought.
> Every time there is a discussion of EU regulating an American firm for anything, a comment like this appears.
The united fruit mentality never really ended.
The united fruit mentality never really ended.
With what reciprocity? EU-based firms being immune to FTC enforcement in their US operations?
Both the US and EU have a fairly strong interest in the principle that transnational companies can be regulated by national regulators, _particularly_ antitrust regulators. Undermining this would tend to lead to a situation where these companies couldn't be effectively regulated by _anyone_.
Both the US and EU have a fairly strong interest in the principle that transnational companies can be regulated by national regulators, _particularly_ antitrust regulators. Undermining this would tend to lead to a situation where these companies couldn't be effectively regulated by _anyone_.
[deleted]
There's a difference between harming US (international) tech firms for the sake of harming the US, and harming antitrust-law-violating, privacy-violating, human-rights-violating tech firms that happen to originate in the US.
That might look like a personal vendetta against Google, but it's not personal at all. It's much like the way the head of the US FTC has a bone to pick with Amazon, not because she has anything personal with Amazon, but because she's charged with protecting consumers and believes Amazon to be harming them.
Just because they're able to get away with it here due to the corruption in American campaign finance doesn't mean they can get away with it everywhere.
That might look like a personal vendetta against Google, but it's not personal at all. It's much like the way the head of the US FTC has a bone to pick with Amazon, not because she has anything personal with Amazon, but because she's charged with protecting consumers and believes Amazon to be harming them.
Just because they're able to get away with it here due to the corruption in American campaign finance doesn't mean they can get away with it everywhere.
> There is a limit.
And that limit is antitrust violations.
And that limit is antitrust violations.
The US won't be concerned about the rights or wrongs of the issue. If Google is willing to pay 25% of avoided fines to politicians, politicians will certainly be overjoyed to make Google's rights to abuse their position in the European market a personal passion.
The main job of American diplomacy is securing profits all over the world for America's most generous lobbyists.
The main job of American diplomacy is securing profits all over the world for America's most generous lobbyists.
Politicians are way, way cheaper than those 25%.
I look forward to your support of US fines on the German automobile industry and Airbus as well.
Any half wit judge should be able to bless those judgements if we’re using the standard in the court ruling we’re commenting on.
It’s a almost as though you think the issue here is about some actual abuse as opposed to the logical loops the judgement is diving through to push through those findings.
Any half wit judge should be able to bless those judgements if we’re using the standard in the court ruling we’re commenting on.
It’s a almost as though you think the issue here is about some actual abuse as opposed to the logical loops the judgement is diving through to push through those findings.
And yet none of Google's competitors are in the EU, despite their stronger antitrust laws. You can actually make a case that this fine was made in good faith, but historically, their fines have been completely arbitrary. They fined Google $2.8 billion for simply adding Google Shopping to search.
That's fine, the US has been doing exactly this for at least the last 10 years against EU corporations.
Time to walk the talk.
Time to walk the talk.
And they have in the past with a mix of stick and carrot. The US tries to protect its companies despite knowing they're in the wrong, the EU does the same. What changed is that even the US regulators and politicians grew weary of big-tech's abuses and the fact they have so much power they're getting to be too big to control.
Volkswagen paid much more for Dieselgate in the US
So . . deliberately concealing poisonous gas emissions on a scale so massive, it affected every living thing in the United States is a little different to a highly subjective interpretation of a dominant market position and an even more suspect ruling on abuse of said monopoly.
Well, the fine was higher
You think we're arguing about the dollar amount or about the lack of legal grounds ?
I find it interesting how many Americans are pissed off ITT about the EU fining a US company for malicious practices. I didn't see the same reaction from Americans when the US was suing VW, Toyota, or other foreign companies for theirs.
There is this idea of “dual criminality” that makes those examples more fair from the American perspective. For instance emissions tampering is illegal in Europe too, the same of which can not be said for their set of increasingly arcane antitrust rules that are almost overwhelmingly used against American companies.
> There is this idea of “dual criminality” that makes those examples more fair from the American perspective.
BNP got tried for doing stuff in Europe, that was legal in Europe, with no involvement from its US subsidiary. It still got fined.
BNP got tried for doing stuff in Europe, that was legal in Europe, with no involvement from its US subsidiary. It still got fined.
Well, its about time America stepped up with its own anti-trust laws as well. EU has ‘increasingly arcane’ antitrust anti tech monopoly laws because its a pioneer here and US is doing exactly jack to rein in the big tech. I mean why should they, right? Their companies going out in the world conquering new markets and raking in revenues like never before while uncle sam has to kick back his feet and wait for his to cut roll in. Not to mention all that sweet sweet consumer data and spying benefits. EU is not at fault here.
> because its a pioneer here
In what? Bureaucracy?
> EU is not at fault here.
They could try promoting innovation and producing tech companies of their own instead of devoting substantial amounts of energy to squeezing their more successful foreign counterparts. A cursory glance at the largest market cap companies in America reveals they are on average about 40-50 years old vs like 100 for Europe.
In what? Bureaucracy?
> EU is not at fault here.
They could try promoting innovation and producing tech companies of their own instead of devoting substantial amounts of energy to squeezing their more successful foreign counterparts. A cursory glance at the largest market cap companies in America reveals they are on average about 40-50 years old vs like 100 for Europe.
> they could try innovation and producing consumer hostile stalking conglomarates of their own
yes, they could do that. The core business is illegal though, so I imagine it to be rather hard.
yes, they could do that. The core business is illegal though, so I imagine it to be rather hard.
Dont hide behind the bureaucracy bs. Its common knowledge anti- trust laws overhaul for big tech are long overdue
VW? The VW fiasco was SO BAD that I generally disregard people that drive VW's. The duplicitous VW management forced their software engineers to implement "inspector mode" and then allowed those engineers to go to jail to save their own asses. VW is a despicable company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
I'm pretty sure that while VW made all the headlines, subsequent research found that almost all manufacturers of Diesel cars, including Chrysler & GM, were up to the same shenanigans.
Especially as EU is also fining European organizations.
[deleted]
What is interesting about it? It does not making sense to me. E.g. one should see German reaction in VW case and plenty of them were pissed on US fines. Same with fine on BP in US.
Well in my bubble, people were pissed that German/EU regulators did so little in the VW case and were glad that at least the US did something there.
Of course there was some monetary incentive behind it (Hoping that you could get some money out of the case for your VW, too) but generally there really wasn't any "The US just wants to get money from german car makers" sentiment.
Of course there was some monetary incentive behind it (Hoping that you could get some money out of the case for your VW, too) but generally there really wasn't any "The US just wants to get money from german car makers" sentiment.
If you put it like that it is an actual service. The US is far enough removed to make a reasonably neutral decision.
The worst remains BNP being fined 9 billions for actions happening outside the USA, that don’t involve the American branch and were legal where they were done. That was utter bullshit.
I’m still shocked we didn’t send the US ambassador packing for this.
I’m still shocked we didn’t send the US ambassador packing for this.
> I didn't see the same reaction from Americans when the US was suing VW, Toyota, or other foreign companies for theirs.
Like US fining strategic European nuclear company Alstom and then buying them and then telling the story of evil Putin...?
Like US fining strategic European nuclear company Alstom and then buying them and then telling the story of evil Putin...?
"The Court agreed with the Commission's assessment that iPhone maker Apple (AAPL.O) was not in the same market and therefore could not be a competitive constraint against Android."
This tells a lot about how much our EU lawmakers understand modern technology. While there's nothing wrong with this fine, claiming that Apple isn't in the same market as Android is utter ridiculousness.
This tells a lot about how much our EU lawmakers understand modern technology. While there's nothing wrong with this fine, claiming that Apple isn't in the same market as Android is utter ridiculousness.
The market they were considering was for OSs that were licensed to hardware manufacturers. And they did that because the abuse they were investigating was in those license agreements.
They specifically excluded Apple (and Blackberry) as competitors in that market because they don't license to external hardware manufacturers. Google didn't contest that definition.
They specifically excluded Apple (and Blackberry) as competitors in that market because they don't license to external hardware manufacturers. Google didn't contest that definition.
Yes, and that's a myopic exclusion that ignores the fact that we want more manufacturers to license their OS, not less.
Not sure that makes any sense in the context of this investigation. The only possible difference including Apple would have made is in concluding that Google isn't dominant and thus restricting browsers and search within the license had much less material impact. In other words, it would either have no effect or have the effect of letting Google off for its restrictive practices.
And investigating Apple for its licensing agreements with its hardware supplier probably would be a bit pointless.
Now, should the EU be investigating the lack of hardware freedom in some ecosystems including Apple's? Sure, sounds eminently sensible. But that's completely different to what the EU was investigating here.
And investigating Apple for its licensing agreements with its hardware supplier probably would be a bit pointless.
Now, should the EU be investigating the lack of hardware freedom in some ecosystems including Apple's? Sure, sounds eminently sensible. But that's completely different to what the EU was investigating here.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Apple isn't in the same market. It helps to look at the actual overview because it explains what they mean by markets and why apple isn't in the same market:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...
What's key in this is that it's about google taking their dominant position in one market and using it to exert undue influence in another market.
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/202...
What's key in this is that it's about google taking their dominant position in one market and using it to exert undue influence in another market.
> In the present case, the General Court notes at the outset that the Commission identified, first of all, four types of relevant market: (i) the worldwide market (excluding China) for the licensing of smart mobile device operating systems; (ii) the worldwide market (excluding China) for Android app stores; (iii) the various national markets, within the EEA, for the provision of general search services; and (iv) the worldwide market for non OS-specific mobile web browsers. The Commission went on to find that Google held a dominant position on the first three of those markets.
Yes, if my wording of "one market" is confusing hopefully this makes it clear:
You don't really get in trouble for just growing your business within a market. You get in trouble for abusing your dominant position in one market to influence another.
You can see this in the restrictions identified
> those contained in ‘distribution agreements’, requiring manufacturers of mobile devices to pre-install the general search (Google Search) and (Chrome) browser apps in order to be able to obtain a licence from Google to use its app store (Play Store);
They used their position of having a huge influence with Play Store to force manufacturers to include google search and chrome, which are unrelated.
> those contained in ‘anti-fragmentation agreements’, under which the operating licences necessary for the pre-installation of the Google Search and Play Store apps could be obtained by mobile device manufacturers only if they undertook not to sell devices running versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google;
They used their position with Android to force manufacturers to push google search and the play store by not letting them even build other devices without approval.
> those contained in ‘revenue share agreements’, under which the grant of a share of Google’s advertising revenue to the manufacturers of mobile devices and the mobile network operators concerned was subject to their undertaking not to pre-install a competing general search service on a predefined portfolio of devices.
They used their advertising business to force out competitors in search. You can argue this is one market if you want but it's clear this isn't competing on the merits of google search.
You don't really get in trouble for just growing your business within a market. You get in trouble for abusing your dominant position in one market to influence another.
You can see this in the restrictions identified
> those contained in ‘distribution agreements’, requiring manufacturers of mobile devices to pre-install the general search (Google Search) and (Chrome) browser apps in order to be able to obtain a licence from Google to use its app store (Play Store);
They used their position of having a huge influence with Play Store to force manufacturers to include google search and chrome, which are unrelated.
> those contained in ‘anti-fragmentation agreements’, under which the operating licences necessary for the pre-installation of the Google Search and Play Store apps could be obtained by mobile device manufacturers only if they undertook not to sell devices running versions of the Android operating system not approved by Google;
They used their position with Android to force manufacturers to push google search and the play store by not letting them even build other devices without approval.
> those contained in ‘revenue share agreements’, under which the grant of a share of Google’s advertising revenue to the manufacturers of mobile devices and the mobile network operators concerned was subject to their undertaking not to pre-install a competing general search service on a predefined portfolio of devices.
They used their advertising business to force out competitors in search. You can argue this is one market if you want but it's clear this isn't competing on the merits of google search.
The market in question is licensable smartphone operating systems, which is not a market Apple operates in (edit: well, other markets are involved too, see sibling thread).
They (Commission and Court) never claimed that there aren't any markets they both operate in (which there obviously are).
See the decision for more details, AFAICS it talks about Google's claim that Apple provides enough competitive constraint starting from section 145: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...
They (Commission and Court) never claimed that there aren't any markets they both operate in (which there obviously are).
See the decision for more details, AFAICS it talks about Google's claim that Apple provides enough competitive constraint starting from section 145: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...
And I continue to claim that looking at market this myopically doesn't actually represent the full harm and prevents the courts from making better decisions across the board. Just because Apple doesn't allow people to pay them money to deploy iOS it doesn't mean it has no effect on us consumers across the EU.
With this kind of thinking they'll just send a signal that building Apple-style locked DRM platforms is the only way to succeed - instead of building platforms that can be reused across manufacturers and can provide diversity in the market.
I really don't want to see another reenactment of Symbian with it's self-destroying fragmentation against Apple.
With this kind of thinking they'll just send a signal that building Apple-style locked DRM platforms is the only way to succeed - instead of building platforms that can be reused across manufacturers and can provide diversity in the market.
I really don't want to see another reenactment of Symbian with it's self-destroying fragmentation against Apple.
If you define your market narrowly enough you can make everyone a monopoly. Sometimes what is needed is to step back and say the definition is too narrow.
The issue isn't about being a monopoly, it's about using a dominant position to force the other party to use other products.
As soon as you successfully pressure someone into that kind of deal, it is pretty obvious that the product you use as leverage is dominant in some way.
As soon as you successfully pressure someone into that kind of deal, it is pretty obvious that the product you use as leverage is dominant in some way.
Civil law doesn't work like that. Its precise. You cant just 'interpret' things to widen or shrink the scope. You can't include things that are not directly specified in the law or in the lawsuit. If the lawsuit is about software licensed to hardware manufacturers, the lawsuit is about it. Another lawsuit will need to be opened to deal with software licensed to end users. Its somewhat like iterative software development. The scope is kept as precise as possible.
Just got me thinking - how does such an amount get actually transferred from company to state (EU) coffers?
Do they wire it in parts from their presumably multiple accounts in various banks? Which entity do they send it to? Does the fine allow paying it in installments? How does it pass AML clearance?
And what happens should they theoretically fail to pay? Does law enforcement show up at their door? Does a collection agency handle it?
Do they wire it in parts from their presumably multiple accounts in various banks? Which entity do they send it to? Does the fine allow paying it in installments? How does it pass AML clearance?
And what happens should they theoretically fail to pay? Does law enforcement show up at their door? Does a collection agency handle it?
Simple wire transfer. Some time later they (or their lawyers) will get a letter with IBAN number (idk about curia.eu, but in Poland the account would be in central bank). Also a wire title which they need to add to wire order so the transfers can be identified. It doesn't need to be a single transfer, but all of them need to arrive before stated date.
Again idk about this particular court, but also in Poland (and I expect most EU countries) they're also allowed to pay at the counter with a "legal tender" (cash and some limited legal papers like promissiory note), that is, they're free to dump truckload of coins at the main entrance, should they procure such an amount.
Over here people do it sometimes to vent themselves if they loose a case. Typically police will get called, but it's the cashier's job description to count the money, and they can't require extra payment for that, so in extreme cases the office gets locked for a whole day.
Again idk about this particular court, but also in Poland (and I expect most EU countries) they're also allowed to pay at the counter with a "legal tender" (cash and some limited legal papers like promissiory note), that is, they're free to dump truckload of coins at the main entrance, should they procure such an amount.
Over here people do it sometimes to vent themselves if they loose a case. Typically police will get called, but it's the cashier's job description to count the money, and they can't require extra payment for that, so in extreme cases the office gets locked for a whole day.
> they're free to dump truckload of coins at the main entrance,
Probably not. I suspect that most countries allow creditors to refuse payment in large quantities of coins or notes. Certainly the UK does.
Probably not. I suspect that most countries allow creditors to refuse payment in large quantities of coins or notes. Certainly the UK does.
> And what happens should they theoretically fail to pay? Does law enforcement show up at their door? Does a collection agency handle it?
Court-assigned fines to the government generally get collected by the internal revenue service, not a collection agency; but the standard means if they do not comply does not involve law enforcement showing up at their door but the starting point is letters to all the banks to seize any current and incoming funds, if that is not sufficient, followed by seizure and auction of any real assets (e.g. buildings) - but since the described amount is roughly what Google earns from EU in a single month, simply seizing that sales revenue would be enough.
Court-assigned fines to the government generally get collected by the internal revenue service, not a collection agency; but the standard means if they do not comply does not involve law enforcement showing up at their door but the starting point is letters to all the banks to seize any current and incoming funds, if that is not sufficient, followed by seizure and auction of any real assets (e.g. buildings) - but since the described amount is roughly what Google earns from EU in a single month, simply seizing that sales revenue would be enough.
> And what happens should they theoretically fail to pay?
They pay more or lose access to billions in sales. It's both as complicated and as simple as that.
They pay more or lose access to billions in sales. It's both as complicated and as simple as that.
Another question: what is done with this money?
I assume it's similar to the Microsoft case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission "The fines will not be distributed to the companies that lost income due to Microsoft practices. The money paid in fines to the European Court goes back into the EU budget"
2019 EU's budget was 148m EUR.
Budget overall is used for a mix of growth (e.g. building bridges or other infracstructure), security (border patrol), regional help (e.g. after wildfires). They do a lot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#E...
2019 EU's budget was 148m EUR.
Budget overall is used for a mix of growth (e.g. building bridges or other infracstructure), security (border patrol), regional help (e.g. after wildfires). They do a lot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#E...
148 Billion euros
The number in the article does look a little weird, XXX.XXX millions
The thousands separator in many places in Europe is a dot.
See eg. https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19455-01/806-0169/overview-9/ind...
See eg. https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19455-01/806-0169/overview-9/ind...
The number seems low and I am curious, does that $148B include military spendings? Or does each state contribute with their military separate from monetary contributions to run the EU?
No, this is the budget for the European Union's funds and institutions only. It's separate from the national budgets of its member states although it's funded out of them with each country contributing proportionately.
Military spending and the maintenance of armed is still an exclusive competence of member states and will likely remain so even as there's more integration of rapid intervention and peacekeeping HQs within the EU.
Total defence spending across the entire EU is around €200 billion.
The €148 billion does include a security and defence budget of around €44 billion a year, most of which goes to a joint R&D fund (European Defence Fund), the European Peace Facility, and agencies like Europol and Frontex.
Military spending and the maintenance of armed is still an exclusive competence of member states and will likely remain so even as there's more integration of rapid intervention and peacekeeping HQs within the EU.
Total defence spending across the entire EU is around €200 billion.
The €148 billion does include a security and defence budget of around €44 billion a year, most of which goes to a joint R&D fund (European Defence Fund), the European Peace Facility, and agencies like Europol and Frontex.
I assume the paying party will be creative about it. The fine is probably paid in Play Store vouchers.
More abandoned projects. Keep an eye on Google Graveyard : https://killedbygoogle.com/
I'd ship it in pennies if it were up to me. And lobby the US government for a special issue penny that carries a 99% tax when used.
The EU can suck it.
The EU can suck it.
> I'd ship it in pennies if it were up to me
In such case melting them for scrap would bring even more money! I doubt that Google would manage to get enough pennies.
> And lobby the US government for a special issue penny that carries a 99% tax when used.
They would need to pay in Euro.
In such case melting them for scrap would bring even more money! I doubt that Google would manage to get enough pennies.
> And lobby the US government for a special issue penny that carries a 99% tax when used.
They would need to pay in Euro.
Lol. They have probably defined how to money is to be sent to them. Even if they had not it's probably better to stfu and comply. More your try to fuck with the regulators, more they will punish you.
If you really took that comment seriously, you have bigger problems to worry about.
Speculating that this did seriously play out and you "fuck with the regulators, they punish you", is that really the accepted cultural take in Europe?
I mean, sure, there is a common sense level of decency in dealing with regulators and not making them madder than need be, but take a look at the United States. A regulator may try asserting more power than they possess and the courts offer a system to at least challenge it and have these excesses checked.
I suppose the point of my comical take was the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. Trump went aggressive on the EU and threatened to sanction the fuck out of the union if they hit the tech firms or Boeing with fines.
There's always a bigger fish in the pond. The regulators themselves can play this game given Europes historical economic position, but when tech companies deemed important to US national security and honestly scientific progress around the world are put at threat by the squabbling in Brussels, you can bet a stern response from the US will be taken seriously.
Speculating that this did seriously play out and you "fuck with the regulators, they punish you", is that really the accepted cultural take in Europe?
I mean, sure, there is a common sense level of decency in dealing with regulators and not making them madder than need be, but take a look at the United States. A regulator may try asserting more power than they possess and the courts offer a system to at least challenge it and have these excesses checked.
I suppose the point of my comical take was the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. Trump went aggressive on the EU and threatened to sanction the fuck out of the union if they hit the tech firms or Boeing with fines.
There's always a bigger fish in the pond. The regulators themselves can play this game given Europes historical economic position, but when tech companies deemed important to US national security and honestly scientific progress around the world are put at threat by the squabbling in Brussels, you can bet a stern response from the US will be taken seriously.
> Speculating that this did seriously play out and you "fuck with the regulators, they punish you", is that really the accepted cultural take in Europe?
Yes? Regulators are there to stop companies abusing their powers.
> A regulator may try asserting more power than they possess and the courts offer a system to at least challenge it and have these excesses checked.
Legally challenging a regulator within the system is not "fucking with the regulators". We're already talking about an appeal, and there may be another level of appeals to this. It's not a regulator running wild.
> I suppose the point of my comical take was the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. Trump went aggressive on the EU and threatened to sanction the fuck out of the union if they hit the tech firms or Boeing with fines.
It feels weird that you think an appropriate response to a company fined for breaking the rules and being anti-competitive is political threats and sanctions.
> scientific progress around the world are put at threat by the squabbling in Brussels
I'm not really sure that google forcibly stopping manufacturers from making phones with non-google-approved android installed is key scientific progress.
Yes? Regulators are there to stop companies abusing their powers.
> A regulator may try asserting more power than they possess and the courts offer a system to at least challenge it and have these excesses checked.
Legally challenging a regulator within the system is not "fucking with the regulators". We're already talking about an appeal, and there may be another level of appeals to this. It's not a regulator running wild.
> I suppose the point of my comical take was the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. Trump went aggressive on the EU and threatened to sanction the fuck out of the union if they hit the tech firms or Boeing with fines.
It feels weird that you think an appropriate response to a company fined for breaking the rules and being anti-competitive is political threats and sanctions.
> scientific progress around the world are put at threat by the squabbling in Brussels
I'm not really sure that google forcibly stopping manufacturers from making phones with non-google-approved android installed is key scientific progress.
It is ABSOLUTELY a regulator and a court system running wild. That's the whole point here.
The commission narrowly defines a mobile OS market and excludes Apple through a selective description of these markets. Read the other comments in this thread for why that is an absolutely dishonest way of defining markets for the purpose of investigating or finding abuse of monopoly power.
Individuals on the committee have openly gone on record calling US tech companies "Evil" and vowing to exact punishment on them far before any investigation had begun. This is the definition of persecution.
An appropriate response to a reasonable government agency enforcement would be met with nothing but applause and diplomacy in international circles. When you look at the history of US tech companies being asked to pay unimaginable sums through very suspect changes in law and court rulings that seem to never challenge the core legal issues that are set on legally suspect ground, there is absolutely a diplomatic objection to be filed. In the interest of protecting the interests of any sovereign nation, that nation may choose to use all options available to it to stop the miscarriage of justice.
The United States and Europe maintain friendly relations through a series of agreements rooted in trust and a shared sense of purpose. When you have idiots and childlike behavior such as this that narrowly carves out a legally suspect standard to target and persecute an important US industry while turning a blind eye to Chinese companies , well . . . that's going to need a lot of re thinking.
As far as scientific advancement goes, you're hopefully smart enough to realize the contributions of all the intelligent work done not just at Google, but in the private sector at large. If not, well, your bias may prevent you from acting rational in this discussion and i wish you well.
The commission narrowly defines a mobile OS market and excludes Apple through a selective description of these markets. Read the other comments in this thread for why that is an absolutely dishonest way of defining markets for the purpose of investigating or finding abuse of monopoly power.
Individuals on the committee have openly gone on record calling US tech companies "Evil" and vowing to exact punishment on them far before any investigation had begun. This is the definition of persecution.
An appropriate response to a reasonable government agency enforcement would be met with nothing but applause and diplomacy in international circles. When you look at the history of US tech companies being asked to pay unimaginable sums through very suspect changes in law and court rulings that seem to never challenge the core legal issues that are set on legally suspect ground, there is absolutely a diplomatic objection to be filed. In the interest of protecting the interests of any sovereign nation, that nation may choose to use all options available to it to stop the miscarriage of justice.
The United States and Europe maintain friendly relations through a series of agreements rooted in trust and a shared sense of purpose. When you have idiots and childlike behavior such as this that narrowly carves out a legally suspect standard to target and persecute an important US industry while turning a blind eye to Chinese companies , well . . . that's going to need a lot of re thinking.
As far as scientific advancement goes, you're hopefully smart enough to realize the contributions of all the intelligent work done not just at Google, but in the private sector at large. If not, well, your bias may prevent you from acting rational in this discussion and i wish you well.
> It is ABSOLUTELY a regulator and a court system running wild. That's the whole point here.
Well that's stepped up significantly, the regulator and the legal system running wild.
The courts offer a way of checking if the fine should really have been issued, and it should. In response to this you suggest unchecked sanctions applied to completely different industries.
> The commission narrowly defines a mobile OS market and excludes Apple through a selective description of these markets.
Seems extremely simple to me that these things are distinct based on the restrictions we're talking about. Google may have been able to tie everything together if only they made and manufactured their own phones. I'm not even sure that including apple would help much since Android has an 80% market share.
> Individuals on the committee
The regulator and the court involved in the appeal?
> As far as scientific advancement goes, you're hopefully smart enough to realize the contributions of all the intelligent work done not just at Google, but in the private sector at large
And anti-competitive practices hurt the private sector. Competition has been fundamental to the dramatic progress made, and I don't think that google trying to stop people building phones with different OS's on them is beneficial.
Compete on merits, rather than "might makes right", in my opinion.
Google was, for example, controlling what versions of android manufacturers could put on their devices if they wanted any devices they made to have the Play Store. That does not to me seem like a good thing.
Well that's stepped up significantly, the regulator and the legal system running wild.
The courts offer a way of checking if the fine should really have been issued, and it should. In response to this you suggest unchecked sanctions applied to completely different industries.
> The commission narrowly defines a mobile OS market and excludes Apple through a selective description of these markets.
Seems extremely simple to me that these things are distinct based on the restrictions we're talking about. Google may have been able to tie everything together if only they made and manufactured their own phones. I'm not even sure that including apple would help much since Android has an 80% market share.
> Individuals on the committee
The regulator and the court involved in the appeal?
> As far as scientific advancement goes, you're hopefully smart enough to realize the contributions of all the intelligent work done not just at Google, but in the private sector at large
And anti-competitive practices hurt the private sector. Competition has been fundamental to the dramatic progress made, and I don't think that google trying to stop people building phones with different OS's on them is beneficial.
Compete on merits, rather than "might makes right", in my opinion.
Google was, for example, controlling what versions of android manufacturers could put on their devices if they wanted any devices they made to have the Play Store. That does not to me seem like a good thing.
Are you illiterate or just incapable of entertaining the idea that you might be wrong?
From my original comment : “ the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. ” in other words, speaking about the European entities including the commission, unelected bureaucrats running agencies as well as the history of successive CJEU rulings usurping the authority of the legislative branch to deem international agreements invalid for exceedingly silly reasons when said legislature undertook successive acts guaranteeing the flow of data between the EU and the US.
If you’re not well informed about the situation in the EU and are winging your argument based on our exchange alone with no appetite or curiosity to educate yourself, it’s pathetic and you can fuck right off.
>Google was, for example, controlling what versions of android manufacturers could put on their devices if they wanted any devices they made to have the Play Store. That does not to me seem like a good thing.
Have you worked in the phone industry? Set foot in a single physical phone store that’s not an Apple Store for more than a tourist visit? Do you know the kind of bait and switch that’s out there for these exact agreements to be formalized into legal documents?
The history of abuse, scams, deliberate overzealous marketing leading to shitty consumer experiences through fragmentation is what those documents address. You know this as well as anyone out there.
You can’t just run a phone company that sells the new A1.5573 Play store model(limited stock, ie 100s only manufactured during a lifetime) while selling the A1.5573e non play store model and confuse your customers by having all your marketing showing the play store phone with the play store apps with the device ID in fine print at the bottom of a 40x40 billboard.
Read the fucking conclusions of the court at least before making stupid statements like “competition on merits, hurr durr”. The court found the commission in violation of preserving the defence the right to be heard by denying them access to evidence and repeatedly so. They actually upheld googles appeal on this count and found the revenue share agreements that underlie the play store install issue to be non abusive.
Again. Fucking read. God gave you the fucking sense to do so and you’re not cattle.
From my original comment : “ the idea of challenging an unjust ruling by entities with a noted history of hostility toward US tech firms. ” in other words, speaking about the European entities including the commission, unelected bureaucrats running agencies as well as the history of successive CJEU rulings usurping the authority of the legislative branch to deem international agreements invalid for exceedingly silly reasons when said legislature undertook successive acts guaranteeing the flow of data between the EU and the US.
If you’re not well informed about the situation in the EU and are winging your argument based on our exchange alone with no appetite or curiosity to educate yourself, it’s pathetic and you can fuck right off.
>Google was, for example, controlling what versions of android manufacturers could put on their devices if they wanted any devices they made to have the Play Store. That does not to me seem like a good thing.
Have you worked in the phone industry? Set foot in a single physical phone store that’s not an Apple Store for more than a tourist visit? Do you know the kind of bait and switch that’s out there for these exact agreements to be formalized into legal documents?
The history of abuse, scams, deliberate overzealous marketing leading to shitty consumer experiences through fragmentation is what those documents address. You know this as well as anyone out there.
You can’t just run a phone company that sells the new A1.5573 Play store model(limited stock, ie 100s only manufactured during a lifetime) while selling the A1.5573e non play store model and confuse your customers by having all your marketing showing the play store phone with the play store apps with the device ID in fine print at the bottom of a 40x40 billboard.
Read the fucking conclusions of the court at least before making stupid statements like “competition on merits, hurr durr”. The court found the commission in violation of preserving the defence the right to be heard by denying them access to evidence and repeatedly so. They actually upheld googles appeal on this count and found the revenue share agreements that underlie the play store install issue to be non abusive.
Again. Fucking read. God gave you the fucking sense to do so and you’re not cattle.
I can only hope that having this outburst made you feel better.
Dude pennies are worth more for their copper than their value, that would be a good deal.
If you're really reading this comment as a serious proposal, then, fuck it . . Special pennies. Minted on grains of zinc. Limited issue, full legal tender.
> full legal tender.
Who decides what is legal tender in the EU?
Who decides what is legal tender in the EU?
If we're really going down this rabbit hole, look up what reserve currencies held by large entities such as private or central banks are and what the SDR set by the IMF is.
The parent comment was a joke it it wasn't clear. A call for malicious compliance given the abject subjectivity of the ruling here. It also illustrates how the pettiness displayed by European entities acting hostile towards western tech companies while ignoring alarming abuses by Chinese companies is silly and dangerous.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind and all that, extend this petty exchange that the rulers of the EU at present seem hell bent on, and we lose so much as a society for negative gain.
The parent comment was a joke it it wasn't clear. A call for malicious compliance given the abject subjectivity of the ruling here. It also illustrates how the pettiness displayed by European entities acting hostile towards western tech companies while ignoring alarming abuses by Chinese companies is silly and dangerous.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind and all that, extend this petty exchange that the rulers of the EU at present seem hell bent on, and we lose so much as a society for negative gain.
> It also illustrates how the pettiness
What about the pettiness of making shit up when you get caught cheating?
Europe is a democracy following the rule of law. The laws are public and everyone can know whether they comply or not. If US companies can't bother to conduct business legally, then they deserve the fines.
If I was an US citizen, I would be more concerned about how the Silicon valley became a hotbed of fraudulent activity [1][2][3] and the impact it will end up having on promising new tech, companies and employees.
[1]: https://www.adweek.com/media/concern-over-google-ad-auction/
[2]: https://www.axios.com/2022/01/18/google-facebook-conspired-m...
[3]: https://www.reuters.com/business/uber-ex-security-chief-accu...
What about the pettiness of making shit up when you get caught cheating?
Europe is a democracy following the rule of law. The laws are public and everyone can know whether they comply or not. If US companies can't bother to conduct business legally, then they deserve the fines.
If I was an US citizen, I would be more concerned about how the Silicon valley became a hotbed of fraudulent activity [1][2][3] and the impact it will end up having on promising new tech, companies and employees.
[1]: https://www.adweek.com/media/concern-over-google-ad-auction/
[2]: https://www.axios.com/2022/01/18/google-facebook-conspired-m...
[3]: https://www.reuters.com/business/uber-ex-security-chief-accu...
Eh? What part of the word "Subjectivity" do you not understand?
Before dragging your ass into making another silly point thats not being debated here, could you please read the thread and understand the law that Google apparently violated here and what part of the court ruling is black or white and not subjectively parsed to the point of hilarity ?
And once you're done with that, go educate yourself on what the difference between a democracy and reality is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_...
Before dragging your ass into making another silly point thats not being debated here, could you please read the thread and understand the law that Google apparently violated here and what part of the court ruling is black or white and not subjectively parsed to the point of hilarity ?
And once you're done with that, go educate yourself on what the difference between a democracy and reality is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_...
pennies are made of zinc, not copper (since 1982)
The fine is in Euros, no USD pennies accepted.
The amount is in Euros, but the government may choose to accept US dollars or British pounds (or goats, or whatever they like) as tender.
> the government may choose to accept US dollars or British pounds (or goats, or whatever they like) as tender.
But the EU must accept Euros. They're not required to accept newly invented American currency or American change. The only reason that the USD isn't bitcoin is because the US government is required to accept it for taxes, and any debt or fine decided by US courts is considered settled if it is paid in US dollars e.g. you can't demand that someone who killed your goats pay off the court judgement in goats.
But the EU must accept Euros. They're not required to accept newly invented American currency or American change. The only reason that the USD isn't bitcoin is because the US government is required to accept it for taxes, and any debt or fine decided by US courts is considered settled if it is paid in US dollars e.g. you can't demand that someone who killed your goats pay off the court judgement in goats.
Google and Alphabet v Commission (Google Android)
Case T-604/18:
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/fiche.jsf;jsessionid=93085C806...
And...
"Google faces fines of up to $25.4b in UK and EU ad tech case" - https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/14/google_cat_eu_case/
And...
"Google faces fines of up to $25.4b in UK and EU ad tech case" - https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/14/google_cat_eu_case/
It's sad that with corporate PR and NDAs we have no idea how this would affect Google, so it often comes, makes a headline, and passes.
How much are Google executives freaking out because of these antitrust lawsuits?
How much are Google executives freaking out because of these antitrust lawsuits?
so Apple and Samsung get most of the profits, and Google has to pay a huge fine for doing the open source thing and letting 3rd parties build handsets. If Google just built their own handset, kept Android closed-source and charged €800 a phone, the EU would have no problem with that but we'd all be worse off.
Maybe that's what Google should do in the EU. Refuse to licence the play store.
If they did, then I'm sure Samsung would develop an app store to compete.
If they did, then I'm sure Samsung would develop an app store to compete.
Samsung already has an appstore
It just seems like the EU here was more worried about businesses than users here. If users were the priority, they would have went after the ios app market.
You can release an Android phone if you so desire right now, the problem seemed to stem from Google not letting you pick and choose which of the Google apps a manufacture could install. This seems clearly up to interpretation, if any manufacture could release an Android phone, then how is the OS what's abusing the Monopoly status here? It seems clear the real culprit is actually the App store, which Google required if a manufacturer included also needed to include a number of Google apps.
If Google got punished so heavily for this, ios's total undeniable 100% monopoly on ios Apps should be a $50 billion fine. They've done all the same moves as Google, but even more locked down.