What do you think of the EU decision to fine Google $5 billion?
Displaying poll results.12672 total votes.
A formal parsing algorithm should not always be used. -- D. Gries
A formal parsing algorithm should not always be used. -- D. Gries
They are offering kind of a fair deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They are offering kind of a fair deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Android is open source the google apps however are not if you want to do it your way and install third party apps have at it but if you want google apps and support then there are only certain configurations they are willing to support. This sounds reasonable google doesn't want to support third party apps.
It's when they start telling manufactures you have to do google apps on all model devices they make or none that's when things start to get unfair. When they pay to have only their apps supported and use
Re: (Score:2)
"they are willing to support"
Ha Ha you're funny, support. Tell me, how can I get support for the google android apps beyond posting in some forum?
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, in this day and age this is the standard of support that is expected. Our company pays quite substantial support fees for a certain software tool and all we get is forum access.
Re: (Score:2)
Even without exclusivity, this would hamper competition greatly: it means that devs will rely on those apps being present, and thus that those apps are required for full usability, and thus that third-party apps probably simple cannot work well in practice. Furthermore, most phones are not high-end, and many are even downright small: requiring google's apps means that extra apps are frivolous luxuries such phones can not really afford. By requiring their presence, competitors immediately must reduce the q
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I think these FAANG companies should be forced to pay more taxes, I think Android's business model is a very fair deal. Free OS in exchange of plugging their other free services.
But this isn't about taxes, this is about Google putting it jackboot on the "open" Android license. Funny how people who attack the BSD license as not truly open have no problem with that.
Re:They are offering kind of a fair deal (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing prevents you from using other search engines, BUT: Google's "deal" with phone manufacturers prevents them from pre-installing anything else. Ask your average, non-technical user how to install an alternate search engine on their phone. Ask your average, non-technical user how they can get rid of the ever-present Google search widget. They will have no idea how to do either of those things. Hence, the result: Android --> Google Search
This is a very clever and intentional business practice by Google. And it is the very definition of an abusive monopoly: using dominance in one area (Android) to support dominance in another area (mobile search). Actually, not only search, but also all of the other uninstallable Google apps, like maps. All of which leads to Google dominance in mobile advertising, which is where they make their money. BTW, It doesn't matter that Android is "free" - so is your first hit from the drug dealer.
Re: (Score:2)
The flaw in the fine is the makes-no-sense standard. Apple has a less open, completely locked down OS environment, but they don't get fined, while Google has a more open and more free for others to use whatever hardware and apps they want OS environment, so they get fined.
They're holding Google to a ridiculous standard while they allow Apple to do way more without comment, only because Google is friendlier to allowing others to bring their own hardware and apps than Apple is. What kind of messed up standard
Re: (Score:2)
Apple gets paid $3 Billion/year for the privilege of being the default search engine on iOS.
Just because they don't happen to own their own, doesn't mean they don't have a financial interest and gain in deciding which one goes on iPhones. I'd guess they have similar deals for any other default app they don't own on iPhones. They certainly make a bunch from their enforced cut of all Apple app store software/book/music/movie sales they do their best to lock all their customers into.
So the argument still stand
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot. Google isn't "forcing" manufacturers to use their search engine nor install their software on their hardware either. Any phone maker is free to not enter into a voluntary agreement with Google to use the software Google produces. They can even use Android as a base without using Google's proprietary software (Amazon does). What they can't do is use Google's software and then not comply with the licensing agreement. Except of course, in Europe, where companies who license software for others
Re: (Score:2)
I don't particularly like Apple, nor Google, despite carrying a phone from each of them, but I do recognize an unfair and counter-productive antitrust decision (only punishing the more open to increasing competition configuration and agreements) when I see one.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Google allows companies to include other search engines and competing browsers, they just have to include Google's when they use Google's software.
The EU defined the relevent "market" as licensable phone OSes. [truthonthemarket.com] That's a ridiculous market definition, which completely excludes, for example, Apple, which has 25% of the EU market for mobile phones.
The EU's antitrust laws don't take into account the affect on consumers, they only look at the structure of the market they define and if the EU thinks they're fai
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on the country, iOS has between 20% and 45% market share in Europe. Hardly a "bit player", I'm pretty sure that's largest than any other single manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
If we compare like for like in terms of competition for customers customers (which is what is supposed to be the subject of anti-trust):
Does Google allow other manufacturers to install Google's OS on their phones at all in order to compete with them? They have no control over over phone manufacturers, who can do anything they want on their phones without Google's approval as long as they aren't using Google's software, but they also allow phone manufacturers to install Google's proprietary software packages
Re: (Score:2)
> This is a very clever and intentional business practice by Google.
Yes, they give people free services in exchange for advertising. This has proven very popular, and that's why Android is one of the 2 biggest mobile OSes.
> And it is the very definition of an abusive monopoly
No. Being successful because people choose your product doesn't make a company a monopoly. Google does not control the supply of smartphone OSes. They actually make the AOSP freely available, so they make it easy for competition t
Hard to find this info? Not so (Score:1)
If you want people to switch their default browser you need to make them want to, and that's just not happening. As for the other apps, they are quite easy to ignore, IF the users want to use another application. Most people don't care.
Re: They are offering kind of a fair deal (Score:3)
The difference between Apple and Google is that one can make the argument that Google is a monopoly, and therefore subject to different requirements. Apple has never come close to monopolizing anything.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's taxation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Way to go, you're saying "you vote me down because you disagree so you're an authoritarian so you should be killed"
Way to go.
No.
I'm saying any person who threaten my liberty should be killed in self-defense.
Which include dictators and socialists.
The problem isn't in the disagreement part. The problem is violating my liberty. Then it's all fair.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah we could have closed border and send those who have come here back again.
May be my preferred solution.
But who is making it happen?
My second best solution would be to deal with the current situation and accept globalism and freedom of people including the freedom to move freely on the planet by removing the welfare state completely and make Sweden a libertarian night-watchmen state instead.
Depending on how you view the possibility of deporting say 2 million people and people who are born here and such t
Re: (Score:1)
Currently we're not paying for social peace.
We're paying to be raped, murdered, pillaged, extinct, replaced and have our culture destroyed because they are using the money to bring in Muslim and African pillagers and invaders.
I understand having no state would lead to the most powerful being the ones most capable to get things their way.
I'm fine with a libertarian night-watchmen state as well as a solution.
It would still be cheaper and not bring in as much trash and defend us from things like socialism and
Re: (Score:1)
If we had a night-watchmen state then people who owned property would still pay for it.
And if we had private guards, military and police then they would still do it.
And if I was allowed to defend myself I would also do it myself.
The left doesn't accept either of the right of oneself or property and take way more money for their shit so ...
I'm open for all of the first three solutions.
Re: (Score:1)
It was an example and it doesn't matter whatever the limit is 60, 65, 70 years, 6, 8 or 10 hours.
It's not acceptable that society rule my life like that regardless of the specifics.
As is though a normal work day in Sweden is 8 hours and the earliest age you can get national pension from right now is 61 but it will become 62 in 2020, 63 in 2023, 64 in 2026.
The average age when people retire right now is 64.5. The higher end for when to start it will be pushed from 67 to 69 years. Swedes as is is already expe
Re: (Score:1)
Road use is theft.
Re: They are offering kind of a fair deal (Score:1)
No. Using someone else's road without permission would be trespassing or such.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They are offering kind of a fair deal (Score:1)
Private property is theft of the commons, defended by threat. Every creature on this planet is joint owner. Claiming vast swaths of land that aren't used is a grave offense to those born into a world of artificial scarcity, which serves only to bottle humanity into a subjugated renting slave class.
Ownership of property ought only extend to a territorial boundary of actual personal use, and never for private profits, but only personal necesities. There is a class of men sitting around doing nothing, owning e
Re: They are offering kind of a fair deal (Score:2)
Every ICE driver is stealing a healthy planet from future generations. That's why they get taxed. Not to pay for roads. It's just a proxy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, taxation is not theft, and you are stupid for thinking it is. "Ownership" is not a natural right. What you can own, how you can own it, who the ownership passes on to when you die, etc. is defined by the laws of your government. And your government is perfectly free to define what small percentage of what you own leaves your ownership and becomes the government's. And for that matter, your government gets to define what theft is too. That way you can't claim you own the wind and then charge the pe
Re: (Score:2)
No, taxation is not theft, and you are stupid for thinking it is. "Ownership" is not a natural right. What you can own, how you can own it, who the ownership passes on to when you die, etc. is defined by the laws of your government. And your government is perfectly free to define what small percentage of what you own leaves your ownership and becomes the government's. And for that matter, your government gets to define what theft is too. That way you can't claim you own the wind and then charge the person next to you with theft for breathing it.
Well, that's a legal-philosophical position. Do we have natural rights, or are rights things bestowed on us by legal texts?
If you follow your reasoning to its extreme, nothing the government does can be wrong provided it first passes the necessary laws. So if the government legally adopts a law that all (e.g.) people born in March are in violation to be punishable by statutory execution, that would be totally fine.
An opposing position is that we naturally have certain rights, like property, and that we acce
Re: (Score:1)
Taxation provides money for dishonest politicians to give to their non-working relatives.
Taxation is theft. It's property taken without the owner's voluntary permission, and that's theft. The relevant consideration is whether the damage caused by the theft is smaller in magnitude than the good (if any) brought about by the exchange of tax money for goods and services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They are offering kind of a fair deal (Score:2)
That's exactly what happens in the Bible...
Re: They are offering kind of a fair deal (Score:1)
Taxation is theft.
In no way does what the money is used for change that.
Re: They are offering kind of a fair deal (Score:1)
Tax evasion is stealing the bread out of the mouth of the poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But they are valuable: Those out of work help keep wages low.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a Libertarian (more accurately called a propertarian) and ant to think in terms of contracts then taxation is the "service fee" for living within and having access to the services and facilities of the nation whose territory you're in.
That includes roads, schools, hospitals, laws, police, and much more. even government departments like the various state and federal land titles offices that say that person X owns parcel Y of land - you know, one of the types of property that you worship so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Income tax can be argued to be theft. My water and sewer bill pay for running water. Roads should be funded by gas tax (I believe mostly are) so that those using the service are the ones paying for it...
Water and sewer are different because you could (in theory) decide not to use the service - although its vastly inefficient to install a water tank and get water trucked in, in theory one could, and many boats do exactly this. Same for electricity and other utilities, you don't need to use them, and you pay for your usage.
This is not the case for all (public) goods, though. In the Netherlands, I pay a watership tax that is used to maintain the dikes and related works that prevent flooding. Is that theft? I
Re: They are offering kind of a fair deal (Score:1)
No they have a cost / someone want to be paid for providing them but they don't have to be paid for by taxes which is theft and abuse. By no means do you need either for things people actually want. Those things people would willingly pay for by their own will. The other things they don't want and society shouldn't force them to it.
Profits isn't theft. Profit is what remains between what someone willingly spent for something after you've paid what you wad willing to pay for something else. There's no theft
Re: (Score:2)
Only retarded children - perhaps natural epsilons, or the sad result of fetal alcohol syndrome - say moronic things like "taxation is theft".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They are offering kind of a fair deal (Score:2)
Taxation is extortion.
Re: They are offering kind of a fair deal (Score:2)
Google's monopoly is in search, not phones. Apple doesn't compare.
Re:Not unfair, but stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting...
it's fair to nerds that EU fined Microsoft when they (used to) put the same conditions and lock-downs on OEMs against BeOS and Linux, not to mention web browsers (which directly contributed to the death of Netscape).
But when Google pretty much places exactly the same restrictions on OEMs with Android, it's unfair ?!
Why is it (most) nerds are so blinded by Google, but awake to the raping* of your privacy by the likes of Facebook or Microsoft?!
* I choose that word carefully, because you can almost always get away from facebook/microsoft, but there's pretty much no escaping Google's trackers [softpedia.com].
Re: (Score:1)
The whole google eco-system is completely optional on android. I've bought a couple of android devices now that came preinstalled with Amazon's AppStore. Also, there are NUMEROUS Chinese OEMs that are currently using homegrown app stores/browsers/everything with android. Is the EU saying that this isn't possible?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time.......it's hard to really care about these large companies losing a few billion here and there. Poor them.
Indeed. I suspect it's largely the moral equivalent of a government entity increasing sin taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, and perhaps even gasoline; which seem, on the surface, to benefit the greater good at the expense of very minor outrage from the general populace.
Unless, you'd consider it extremely likely the additional tax would be passed along in the form of increased fees to the end user of Google, Apple, et al.
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't saying it's impossible, they are saying it's unfair that Google ties the use of its search engine to the use of the rest of the ecosystem.
Thr Amazon App Store is tiny compared to the Google Play Store, and it's the blocking of the use of that store in an "all or sold off" approach that the EU finds unfair.
I can only hope a similar case is coming against Apples walled garden ecosystem.
Re: (Score:1)
For the record, I thought the fines against Microsoft were unfair, too.
Their operating system, their rules.
Don't like it? Use an alternative...
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft had a terrible browser that they used to destroy Netscape through their anticompetitive practices. Google gives money to other browser makers to use their search engine by default - Google is actually sponsoring other browsers. Google works to create a thriving web ecosystem, while Microsoft worked to line their own pockets at the expense of the web.
Re: Not unfair, NOT stupid (Score:2)
Yes, but that was not the problem here, they can require apps to be present. Google mandated exclusivity and forced vendors to have all their Android devices to be locked with this exclusivity as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you don't appear to understand that without the Play Store, Android is almost useless unless the phone manufacturer create their own browser or ship Firefox, and create their own launcher, dialler, mail, calendar, maps, and a multitude of other apps.
Basically Google has quietly been trying to close down Android [arstechnica.com] so people can't produce a custom version, or the process becomes enormously difficult as more and more code becomes closed-source.
The other major issue that people like you don't appear to un
Re: Not unfair, but stupid (Score:3)
Stupidly low fine is the word.
It must hurt hard enough to really kill the profit. The quarterly profit was almost $10 billion. So a $40 billion fine would make a mark for this year.
And now they should go after the richest man ever (Score:1)
It's now Jeff Bezos' turn in the EU hopper.
{^_-}
Unfair but I'm not shedding any tears for Google (Score:3)
Re:Unfair but I'm not shedding any tears for Googl (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is only shipping its software on devices it builds itself. Nothing in their devices precludes the use of third party services. You can always install Google Search or Bing on your iPhone, for example. There is no foul play since there is no licensing to third parties. Choice to the consumer is ensured by the availability of other options (Android devices, for example), a choice not hampered in any way by Apple.
Microsoft can likewise do as it pleases on the devices it manufactures and sells itself (currently, the Surface line). Things are more hairy when they license their software to third parties. As a result of EU's actions they now show you a browser selection dialog the first time you fire up a browser - as long as it's not their own device (Surface line).
The problem is that Google was doing to its partners what Microsoft was doing to theirs in the mid 90s to mid 00s: include our software and only our software or you're out of the licensing system. They can pull this off because their market share is 90%.
This thing is just a replay of EU vs Microsoft from 15-ish years ago. They get a big fine, they will offer two nice screens during Android setup which lets you choose a search app and browser (with their offerings selected by default) and nobody will remember that in 15 years. Now you damn kids get off my lawn!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple is only shipping its software on devices it builds itself. Nothing in their devices precludes the use of third party services. You can always install Google Search or Bing on your iPhone, for example.
Can I install any apps I want on my iPhone running iOS?
Apple invented the modern version of a walled garden. Google just got fined 5 billion for bundling apps. The former is far more restrictive.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally different. Apple doesn't allow anyone else to make money selling Apple compatible hardware. Apple doesn't allow anyone else to run an apple-AppStore.
Google must be sued for allowing those things, because "reasons."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Apple gets away with things that would count as abuse of dominant market position if they had one, because they don't. Microsoft did get sued in the US back during the browser wars for bundling IE with Windows, but it was eventually settled.
i think their money hunger will be the death of us (Score:1)
If you can't Tax Em, Fine Em! (Score:2)
If the EU was serious, they would block Android sales, but they're just going to fine Google big bucks instead. Always question government fines like this. Basically they're pissed that they can't tax Google as much as they'd like to so they're taking a different approach. They already went after MS for Antitrust money, now Google. Wouldn't shock me in the least if Amazon is next.
And don't think for one minute that GDPR isn't going to be used in the same way against Google, MS, Amazon, Facebook, ETC. That's
Re:If you can't Tax Em, Fine Em! (Score:4, Insightful)
If the EU was serious, they would block Android sales
Please block Apple sales for their repeated, lawyer aided, anti competive practices and their gullibility tax.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU used similar fines at the turn of the millenium to fight MS's IE6. How well did it work? Well, how many people still use MS's browser.
Sure, ask if the fine is valid if you like. But the answer is no more "automatically no" than it is "automatically yes".
Lastly, I'll say that if companies pay 0 tax anywhere vai a "double dutch sandwich", I have no problem with fines being used to rectify the situation.
Wait what? (Score:1)
I haven't read the EU court ruling (maybe they make the distinction). I am also not saying that there isn't ro
It's extortion (Score:1)
Granted, I loathe Android with a passion because it's a balkanized, inconsistent piece of crap. I further loathe Google for taking over YouTube and foisting it's ideological views on content creators. But, as with all government fines, I think this is stupid. Who gets the money? Google's competitors? Where does AskJeeves go to get their slice of the pie?
Re:It's extortion (Score:5, Informative)
Who gets the money?
The EU. It's a punitive fine. It's meant to discourage them for trying to continue to break the law. It's not meant to compensate competitors.
The fine should even be more expensive than what Google earned by not respecting the law. They got caught. Just like if you don't pay your income taxes, the fine should be more than what you owed if you paid your taxes in time.
Re:It's a pattern (Score:2)
The "laws" that were broken were EU regulations put in place especially to punish non-EU (US) firms that were succeeding in ways EU based firms could not match. It's not the first time this has happened.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are anti-trust laws. They apply exactly the same to EU firms.
Anyway, if you don't like the laws, don't do business in the EU. EU laws are a lot saner than US laws anyways. US politicians are sold to big corporations.
Following Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
Don't understand (Score:2)
That's the vote I registered. And I don't. First, correct me if I'm wrong, but.. isn't Android open-source? Anyone can download it and do whatever they want to it, including fork it. So Google requiring vendors to do 'x' to use Android seems really out there in fantasy land. Google has no more rights over Android than anyone else from how I see it.
So the entire fine and anti-trust case kinda falls flat in my eyes. Google has no say in how their code they've put in to the community as open source is us
Re:Don't understand (Score:5, Informative)
AOSP is completely open source. This includes the modified Linux kernel, the runtime, and most of the SDK. Different parts are available under different licenses, some of which are copyleft (require you to redistribute changes under the same license, like GPL, LGPL, Apache), other parts are more permissive (like BSD).
However, not everything you get on a stock android phone is open source, but rather proprietary Google software. Not surprisingly, this includes apps that integrate with Google like the YouTube App, and Google Maps. It also includes many apps that previously had open source versions, but Google stopped developing them and made the stock version proprietary, like Music Player (now integrated with Google Play Music), the Messaging App (which at various times has been integrated with Google Hangouts, etc), the Email app (now catering to G-Mail), the Launcher (the software that implements the home screen and application menu, now deeply integrated with Google Now), etc.
Most importantly, the Play Store and Play Services are proprietary Google software. The later is a large collection of libraries needed to do important things on android phones, like push notifications, backups, syncing, in-app purchases, chrome cast support, location utilities, etc. A large majority of Android apps available are written to use some part of Play Services. Thus if you don't have Play Store and Play Services you are shut out of being able to get and run most Android Apps. For all practical purposes you are shut out of the mainstream Google Android Ecosystem, and are instead providing a similar, but incompatible, AOSP Ecosystem.
This is what the fine is about. If you want to use Google Play (or any other proprietary Google Android software), Google requires you to install an entire suite of Google software, and make Google search the default. The EU claims that Google is abusing the dominate market position of Google Play to advance other products, like search, which is illegal under EU anti-trust law.
TL/DR: It is not about Google abusing open source Android. It is about them abusing proprietary Google Play.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not about Google abusing open source Android. It is about them abusing proprietary Google Play.
Oh, ok. So let's think about this for a moment. Android is like.. Linux with some extra bits, that're open source. Google's proprietary suite of software, which just happens to include the Play Store, is more like.. a different distro of Linux would be. Red Hat vs. FreeBSD or something.
SO what the hell? Google isn't allowed to have their own proprietary suite of software they offer? It's not like ANYONE pays for any of this stuff. Wouldn't this be sort of like sueing a Linux distro cuz it doesn't sup
Re: (Score:2)
Erm shoulda said Red Hat vs Debian or something, FreeBSD isn't linux. My mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not free though. Keep up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> It is not about Google abusing open source Android.
Isn't the EU claiming that Google has a monopoly with the Android OS, and that's supposedly why everything else is an issue?
> It is about them abusing proprietary Google Play.
I really would like to understand how this is abuse. Google is giving away this stuff for free. They have a trademark with Android, and in order for it to be called Android, it needs to include the apps that make it Android. Google should be able to define the Android experienc
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with them having proprietary Google Play Service or Store, nor on having compatibility requirements for anyone that creates Android devices using that proprietary software. The antitrust issue arises when you have a dominant position in one market and use it to provide an unfair advantage for an unrelated product. For example, in this case Google requires manufacturers to make Google Search the default if they want make a Android(TM) compatible phone, and the EU decided that Google Se
Qualcomm might be next (again) (Score:2)
Just like Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
It was fine when Microsoft was forced to offer a browser choice for Windows, it's fine now when Google is forced to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Google has not been charging for Android, so it is fair to expect device makers to pre-install other Google apps in exchange. Unlike Apple, which does not allow you to install any competing apps on an iPhone/iPad, Google does not lock down the devices so that only Google apps be used.
Microsoft was charging for Windows 98 back when the browser wars were going on, so it caused problems that shook up the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
"It was fine when Microsoft was forced to offer a browser choice for Windows"
Then again, I'm reminded Windows 10's "OMG, have you tried Edge?! It's faster than ever!" spam and the fearware "Are you sure you want to try a 'possibly' insecure alternative to the official Microsoft offering?!"
Yay, boo,Yay! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no evidence that anti-competitive fines result in higher fees. In fact, there is evidence that this results in lower fees.
Fair in a flying legal pig's eye? (Score:2)
If "fair" is defined by the laws and the courts' interpretation of the laws, then it's fair by definition, but I actually think the fine should be much higher (and which should have been an option). That's because I value freedom above most other things, and especially above profits for the inhuman corporate cancers that are working so hard to take full and complete control over our lives. I'm not going to say much more about that part of it, though I will insert the more complete form of my sig:
#1 Freedom
Re: (Score:2)
Android succeeds because of how well it works. Blackberry, Microsoft, Firefox, Ubuntu, Palm, and others have made smartphone OSes and failed. Government isn't going to create more choice by fining the winners, consumers have to actually want choice, to want something different, in order for there to be more than 2 dominant mobile OSes.
Re: (Score:2)
Android succeeds because of network effects and second mover advantage in the open appstore space. It has nothing to do with quality.
Re: (Score:2)
I ran across that constantly on my old phone. Now, I have a phone with twice the internal memory and the same SD card, and a different carrier. I also have a more effective cleanup app, and never run into that.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was Google I would close my search engine to Europeans and let the populace grab their pitch forks and go deal with their government
They would loose a huge amount of money. They would loose less if they closed their search engine to the USA. It would be funnier too...
You are much unhappier with your government than we are with the EU. Even the UK could only get 3/8 of its electorate voting to leave following a huge effort of blatant & repeated lies, biased right wing press and dodgy politicians out to make a fortune on the projected economic crash.
Re: (Score:2)
I would also add this is quite a different hostory from MS embedding IE into the OS and giving it away to kill Netscape, Sun, and others.
If you are saying MS infraction was far worse, agreed. Else, how?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yep.