The EU treats American companies like a personal piggybank

[Sauron]

You've pivoted to, "It's ethical because it's the law." That's an untenable appeal to authority-- circular logic. The law isn't inherently moral or ethical because it's the law.

Are you not comprehending this is my exact gripe? Microsoft is also an American company. I don't care that this unethical law is consistently unethical (with regard to American companies it rakes).
This is highway robbery.

It's ethical and you don't like competition law. It's there for the purposes outlined by myself and countless others. It's there to benefit the consumer.

Why do you hate capitalism?

 

[Squarechoke]

Again, I've already said quite a bit.


Please note the reference to the Redzone app on Verizon isn't exclusive to Apple. It's for Verizon users on Android, too. Verizon and the NFL have (or had) this exclusive offer. So does the EU sue the NFL for not "allowing competition" by making their Redzone service exclusive to Verizon users? In fact, this choice actually does prevent users on any other network from accessing this. Unlike Europeans on Android, they can't just download a third-party browser or search engine. It's walled-off.

Furthermore, even for Europeans who would used hacked phones with no Google Search/Chrome that Google wouldn't permit to access the Google market, it doesn't matter, because all of those apps are available on secondary app markets since it's a semi-open OS; in fact, there are more apps on these markets because many are prohibited from the official Play Store.

Zero consumer choice was prevented, here. The only thing that was prevented was major corporations like Samsung/HTC/etc and small independent third-party app developers like DuckDuckGo from building their own contracts to pay the telecommunications providers to shove bloatware onto the European consumer's phone (again, Chrome and Google Search are going to be on there no matter what if it's an Android). Meanwhile, those Europeans don't have to buy an Android. They could opt for an iPhone. During this period they could have opted for a Windows phone (still active) or any of the other operating systems. There's also nothing preventing them from ordering phones from outside these carrier stores that are still perfectly compatible on the carrier itself. This is actually one of the only areas where the tech market favors Europeans over Americans because all of these cheapest Chinese phones have stronger compatibility with European GSM/4G networks.

Did Google do wrong? Did they prevent competition? Did they restrict consumer choice? No, no, and no. So why are they really fining Google?

It's a shakedown, dude. It's institutionalized theft. I see it as little different than Chavez "nationalizing" the Chevron oil platforms.

I missed that you answered me, but what you're missing is that the laws are there to stop dominating companies from exploiting that position. You made an example in a different post that an equivalent would be to punish Microsoft for making Internet Explorer the default browser, which is something I already mentioned that they have already been forced to offer alternatives during installation to allow for fair competition in this area. The change in browser market shares show that these things have huge effect and suddenly a far lesser part of the Windows users were using a browser that was outdated, heavy and flawed. It also forced Microsoft to actually try to create a good browser since they now had to compete on more even grounds. The big chance in market shares also clearly show how powerful of a tool it is for a dominating company to use it's position to promote their other software, since if the older alternatives were enough the change in the installation process wouldn't have made any relevant difference. Just saying that there are already choices and ignoring effects like the one I described just shows that you don't understand how exploiting dominating positions work.

The fact that using the dominating position works so well is exactly why Google keeps trying to push the boundaries, as they've done in several aspects.

So these laws have effect and is about protecting consumer interests. As I said the discussion should be about the general concept, especially since it's not yet settled if Google has broken the laws in this case. And as I said, it's better that a law protecting consumer interests is covering even less important cases than if it fails to cover some more important cases because they try to avoid the former. Lots of laws have limit issues, but the companies that are subject to this have huge legal staffs so they should be able to follow the laws.

 

[GalegoREB]

You've pivoted to, "It's ethical because it's the law." That's an untenable appeal to authority-- circular logic. The law isn't inherently moral or ethical because it's the law.

The Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has been roughly the same in the last 60 years.
The rules of operating in the EU are clear, if American/foreign companies don't like them then they should get their business elsewhere.

Edit: Also, this happened today:"Antitrust: Commission fines four consumer electronics manufacturers for fixing online resale prices"(http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4601_en.htm)

 

[Metusalemi]

Time for USexit.

 

[bufetadanacara]

Oh boo hoo, multinationals like Google use all kinds of dirty tricks to cheat their way out of paying corporation tax both domestically and abroad, they're literally paying hundreds of thousands in tax on billions in profit.

Now we're supposed to go to bat for them when they get hoisted by their own petard? You want to play that dirty game, don't cry when you lose a round. At least the EU has the balls to fine these companies, our government is in thrall to these big corporations and multinationals, they let them do whatever they want.

Exactly.

I know it is "legal" but I still call them tax cheats. The laws definitely need to be changed.

 

[JonesBones]

Google smashed earnings and stock is rocking

 

[Madmick]

It's ethical and you don't like competition law. It's there for the purposes outlined by myself and countless others. It's there to benefit the consumer.

Why do you hate capitalism?

That is a result-based or philosophically-intended argument, in terms of mechanics, so it offers nothing in the service of ethics; especially as I've already destroyed the notion it promotes parity in the market with the commentary of a past abuse of Microsoft.

I missed that you answered me, but what you're missing is that the laws are there to stop dominating companies from exploiting that position.

But they aren't exploiting anything. They aren't limiting consumers, so I don't see how they are "protecting" their interests. The search market in Europe was vastly healthier a decade ago.

The Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has been roughly the same in the last 60 years.
The rules of operating in the EU are clear, if American/foreign companies don't like them then they should get their business elsewhere.

Edit: Also, this happened today:"Antitrust: Commission fines four consumer electronics manufacturers for fixing online resale prices"(http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4601_en.htm)

My gracious, it's the same "the law is the law" argument over and over.

 

[Squarechoke]

But they aren't exploiting anything. They aren't limiting consumers, so I don't see how they are "protecting" their interests. The search market in Europe was vastly healthier a decade ago.

I provided a clear example that's already been dealt with, and what the results were. I don't know how to be any clearer. It's also pretty much Google's own fault for letting it go this far as I believe they were told that this was not in compliance back in 2013. Google waited years until they tried to negotiate with the EU, doing nothing about it in the meantime. Not exactly a smart way to deal with legal matters.

 

[Madmick]

I provided a clear example that's already been dealt with, and what the results were. I don't know how to be any clearer. It's also pretty much Google's own fault for letting it go this far as I believe they were told that this was not in compliance back in 2013. Google waited years until they tried to negotiate with the EU, doing nothing about it in the meantime. Not exactly a smart way to deal with legal matters.

No, you didn't. You don't even seem to be aware that action against Microsoft did nothing to change the monopoly on the browser market apart from transpose it to Google (something that was already happening in the rest of the world, anyway, without that law). Furthermore, the argument it "improved" Microsoft's own browser is absurd. Every browser has improved over that period, but Edge is worse in terms of performance compared to Chrome than at almost any time in the past ten years, and a decade ago, IIRC, IE was actually still winning those benchmark and compatibility suites. They held dominance over all but Firefox until right around that period.

 

[Squarechoke]

No, you didn't. You don't even seem to be aware that action against Microsoft did nothing to change the monopoly on the browser market apart from transpose it to Google (something that was already happening in the rest of the world, anyway, without that law). Furthermore, the argument it "improved" Microsoft's own browser is absurd. Every browser has improved over that period, but Edge is worse in terms of performance compared to Chrome than at almost any time in the past ten years, and a decade ago, IIRC, IE was actually still winning those benchmark and compatibility suites. They held dominance over all but Firefox until right around that period.

Yes, I did, and you apparently didn't get the point. The point isn't that any software is forbidden to have a huge market share. If that was the case then Windows would have been targeted in it's entirety since it dominates more than any browser on the desktop/laptop scene. The point is to avoid unfair advantage, which Internet Explorer had due to the dominating position of Windows and how Microsoft used that. Chrome has taken a big market share due to being strong in fair competition, and Internet Explorer dwindled because it wasn't good and no longer propped up by unfair means.

You use the word monopoly entirely wrong. It's not applicable when there are several live competitors and definitely not when the leader only has 59% of the market share. You also seem to have entirely forgotten that IE was improved quite a bit after Microsoft was forced to offer browser alternatives. It even manged to become the fastest browser in some regards for a while, which it wasn't before. It never became the best, but something was done at least. When IE had better compatibility it was really a case of wrongfully implemented HTML so you had some things that worked in IE that wasn't following the standard, so it was really IE that helped pollute sites with bad code. What Microsoft was doing with Edge I have no idea. It didn't feel even close to finished when they released that and they don't seem to have gotten far enough even now to have it be competitive.

 

[GOATER]

Is this like United States vs Microsoft and the browser wars?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

 

[Madmick]

Yes, I did, and you apparently didn't get the point. The point isn't that any software is forbidden to have a huge market share. If that was the case then Windows would have been targeted in it's entirety since it dominates more than any browser on the desktop/laptop scene. The point is to avoid unfair advantage, which Internet Explorer had due to the dominating position of Windows and how Microsoft used that. Chrome has taken a big market share due to being strong in fair competition, and Internet Explorer dwindled because it wasn't good and no longer propped up by unfair means.

You use the word monopoly entirely wrong. It's not applicable when there are several live competitors and definitely not when the leader only has 59% of the market share. You also seem to have entirely forgotten that IE was improved quite a bit after Microsoft was forced to offer browser alternatives. It even manged to become the fastest browser in some regards for a while, which it wasn't before. It never became the best, but something was done at least. When IE had better compatibility it was really a case of wrongfully implemented HTML so you had some things that worked in IE that wasn't following the standard, so it was really IE that helped pollute sites with bad code. What Microsoft was doing with Edge I have no idea. It didn't feel even close to finished when they released that and they don't seem to have gotten far enough even now to have it be competitive.

Microsoft had a 58% share when they were hit with these antitrust laws in 2008. You can't even keep up with the grammar of this debate.

Is this like United States vs Microsoft and the browser wars?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

That was equally hysterical. That was born out of an American culture that viewed things like this:

BTW, few films in cinema history have aged as horribly as this one; especially in terms of their "message".

 

[GalegoREB]

My gracious, it's the same "the law is the law" argument over and over.

It's a law that I and millions of europeans agree and find nothing unethical about it.

 

[Madmick]

It's a law that I and millions of europeans agree and find nothing unethical about it.

Well if I have one takeaway from this thread...it's that you Europeans don't actually care about extranational overreach at all so long as you believe it favors you and your silly politics.

I will remember to put that shoe on the other foot the next time you guys go a-bitching anytime we sanction or embargo some shithole country. Thank you for the skeleton justification for all future encroachments to tell European critics to shove it.

This lesson has been priceless. I will never forget it.

 

[Squarechoke]

Microsoft had a 58% share when they were hit with these antitrust laws in 2008. You can't even keep up with the grammar of this debate.

So you're not going to acknowledge that you called something with a sub-60% market share a monopoly? Or that you didn't know that IE underwent improvements. Or that you didn't understand the difference between the success of IE and Chrome? You're just going to find one thing and try to score a point there?

Sorry, I'm not interested in a discussion where you'll just ignore everything you're corrected on and just keep trying to find one thing where you'll eventually be able to go "aha, you see I was right". I'll just leave this here and I'll be done with it.

 

[GalegoREB]

Well if I have one takeaway from this thread...it's that you Europeans don't actually care about extranational overreach at all so long as you believe it favors you and your silly politics.

There is no extranational overreach, Google willingly broke the law and should have known better. This "silly politics" are the reason our consumer protection laws are leagues above yours.

I will remember to put that shoe on the other foot the next time you guys go a-bitching anytime we sanction or embargo some shithole country. Thank you for the skeleton justification for all future encroachments to tell European critics to shove it.

Google isn't a nation, I posted a link that shown that EU did the same to 4 big tech companies that aren't American.
You getting all riled up and taking this sanctions as "US vs EU" which is just silly.

 

[Madmick]

So you're not going to acknowledge that you called something with a sub-60% market share a monopoly? Or that you didn't know that IE underwent improvements. Or that you didn't understand the difference between the success of IE and Chrome? You're just going to find one thing and try to score a point there?

Sorry, I'm not interested in a discussion where you'll just ignore everything you're corrected on and just keep trying to find one thing where you'll eventually be able to go "aha, you see I was right". I'll just leave this here and I'll be done with it.

That's only one stat counter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

We are also discussing EU rulings, and their 2008 antitrust case was separate from the American one.

I'm growing impatient. This is stuff that I know off the top of my head.