Basically, once you've worked somewhere in the UK for 2+ years you generally have some statutory/default protections. One of which is a set of laws around unfair or "constructive" dismissal[1].
e.g. if we had a falling out and I fired you on the spot, you could take me to an employment tribunal. Likewise, if I made your life hell and essentially forced you to quit, it would amount to the same thing.
These laws ensure that formal, standardised disciplinary processes are followed. This makes sure that employees are subject to the same process as their peers and aren't treated unfairly and that there is a formal, documented justification if an employee is ever terminated.
From an employer POV, this is sometimes a bit annoying when an employee is a bit shit because -- barring cases of gross misconduct -- you still have to put them through the disciplinary song and dance before getting rid of them. "Managing out" is the process of essentially setting them up to fail, you put them on a PIP or something (Performance Improvement Plan) where you'd basically say "you need to be hitting these targets by this date or you're gone". A lot of the time both parties know the individual in question won't hit set targets so the whole thing often feels like a bit of theatre. Keeps things fair though and stops employers taking the piss.
I'm not an expert on US (or UK) employment law but my understanding is that terminating an employee in the US requires far less oversight/justification.
> While the tech bodyshops (TCS, Infosys, etc.) might have a poor reputation in the US, these companies have been absolutely critical in helping move tens of millions into middle-class respectability.
couldn't agree more. In my previous comments, I've criticized bodyshops for their business model but this is so true. While I never worked for any of the WITCH company but I worked with few product based and service based companies, In my case, we do not had our own house, in my 10 years of Software Engineer career, I was able to bought house and also paid my whole housing loan. Own a second hand car. I could also buy a new car but I decided to go ahead with used car instead. For those who don't know, car is necessity in US but in India it is considered a semi-luxury.
Agreed, I would say, I am relatively good at what I do so it also translated in to comparatively higher salary (and still way less than what I could have made if I would have moved to Bengaluru - "Silicon Valley of India")
other comment mentioning that "Ambani’s Reliance co will launch search next month." is not realistic. I mean even Bing is not able to capture significant market share of Google after all these years.
> Google forbidding Indian telcom companies and Chinese smartphone manufactures from installing adwarecrap has made the ultra-cheap smartphone experience somewhat tolerable for hundreds of millions of people.
however, this comment is also related to Ambani’s Jio (Subsidiary of Reliance) are planning to launch Android devices. And mind it, Jio is one of the largest telecom provider in India with the blessing of ruling party. Jio also have suits of all kind of applications like chat, payment, audio streaming like Spotify, and what not, etc. which is less of utility app and can be use as surveillance system for the government in the future.
India is heading towards government system like deadly mix of Russia in terms of democracy and China in terms of surveillance system (look at the recent telecom act amendment proposed by government in last month. Basically it can force any VoIP services such as WhatsApp to verify user identity.)
Ah! the whole theory that Reliance is a BJP's poodle. Go back and look 1986 Cricket World Cup and what is it named.. and .. you got it right, Reliance Cup.
The Ambanis are no one's poodles all Indian Politicians are their poodles. The monumental growth of Reliance from a small textile company to a petro-chemical behemoth to a huge conglomerate happened under the rule of Indian National Congress.
> The Ambanis are no one's poodles all Indian Politicians are their poodles.
I am not denying that. But the way, current government is working, good luck with current situation improving anymore. And BJP or Congress or any other party politicians, especially in India, like to enjoy absolute control over citizens. So by some miracle if other party got in power in future then also they will not work to correct wrong done by current government.
So basically you're saying that here's an American company that is monopolising a critical market in my country, but I prefer that monopoly to continue because I have built up this scenario in which an Indian company might monopolise it instead.
I mean, yes, quite literally, because Google's "monopolisation" pales in comparison to the insane influence Jio already has. Jio was the first telecom in India that required it's users to submit fingerprints to get a SIM card. You can't get more explicitly dystopian than that - want internet? Submit your fingerprints so we can link it to your National Identity Document and who you call/text.
This is a complete fabrication. Aadhaar verification via biometrics was permitted for all financial, telecom and other services simultaneously. I got fingerprinted for an Airtel SIM and a Kotak Bank account first and Jio much later.
it isn't fabrication, when fingerprint authentication was (may be still) the ONLY option provided by Jio. I went to buy Jio sim and decided to not buy only because there wasn't other option like submitting copy of document which all other telecom companies provide.
I checked on homepage and I didn't see any story about it so I posted it. But later, I tried to delete this but i can't see an option to delete. Maybe Hide will works?
13. Accordingly, in terms of the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, the Commission has imposed monetary penalty as well as issued cease and desist order against Google from indulging in anti-competitive practices that have been found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Some of the measures that were indicated by the Commission are as follows:
i. OEMs shall not be restrained from (a) choosing from amongst Google’s proprietary applications to be pre-installed and should not be forced to pre-install a bouquet of applications, and (b) deciding the placement of pre-installed apps, on their smart devices.
ii. Licensing of Play Store (including Google Play Services) to OEMs shall not be linked with the requirement of pre-installing Google search services, Chrome browser, YouTube, Google Maps, Gmail or any other application of Google.
iii. Google shall not deny access to its Play Services APIs to disadvantage OEMs, app developers and its existing or potential competitors. This would ensure interoperability of apps between Android OS which complies with compatibility requirements of Google and Android Forks. By virtue of this remedy, the app developers would be able to port their apps easily onto Android forks.
iv. Google shall not offer any monetary/ other incentives to, or enter into any arrangement with, OEMs for ensuring exclusivity for its search services.
v. Google shall not impose anti-fragmentation obligations on OEMs, as presently being done under AFA/ ACC. For devices that do not have Google’s proprietary applications pre-installed, OEMs should be permitted to manufacture/ develop Android forks based smart devices for themselves.
vi. Google shall not incentivise or otherwise obligate OEMs for not selling smart devices based on Android forks.
vii. Google shall not restrict un-installing of its pre-installed apps by the users.
viii. Google shall allow the users, during the initial device setup, to choose their default search engine for all search entry points. Users should have the flexibility to easily set as well as easily change the default settings in their devices, in minimum steps possible.
ix. Google shall allow the developers of app stores to distribute their app stores through Play Store.
Can I have the same for Micrsoft and Apple for both mobile and desktop?
For Apple I get it's different since they don't have OEMs selling Macs/iPhones/iPads but I feel like many similar restrictions should apply
Examples:
> Google shall allow the users, during the initial device setup, to choose their default search engine for all search entry points.
> Google shall not offer any monetary/ other incentives to, or enter into any arrangement with, OEMs for ensuring exclusivity for its search services.
Seems like this should go both ways given the previous one.
> Google shall allow the developers of app stores to distribute their app stores through Play Store.
> Google shall not restrict un-installing of its pre-installed apps by the users.
I know Apple has done a better job of this now than in the past but I can't uninstall the dialer on iOS where as I can on Android, as just one example still left. I'm pretty sure I can set the default camera app on Android as well and delete the built in one though I haven't used android in years so no idea if that's still a possibility.
Also, while we're at it. Will any of this apply to Chromebooks?
Nobody cares about Chromebooks. They only matter in schools and they're almost certainly illegal in schools, so that will self-solve when those charges get addressed.
Minors can't consent to being spied on. And being a school to which they are obligated by law to go, they can't be forced to consent even if they could consent.
There are multiple cases being processed in Denmark at the moment. While Chromebooks aren't outright illegal, Google's processing of school children's personal data might apparently violates the GDPR.
Holy hell, this seems a lot more comprehensive than I'd ever expected. Good job India.
I hope this spreads to the rest of the world somehow. The fact that it's impossible to uninstall YouTube or use Vanced as the default for YouTube.com links is the bane of my existence.
As an Indian, unfortunately I don't have much hope. Even if this is true and somehow got implemented, it has even far reaching worse outcome for the country. I hope that i am wrong but see my other comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33278016
You actually can have Vanced be the default! Set an app timer for 0hr 0 min on YouTube, and go into the app link behavior in settings to default to Vanced. After that, links should open in Vanced. In apps that have browsers, view the link in the internal browser if it brings you to YouTube.com, and it should redirect.
It’s under the new “digital well-being” menu in settings. Quickest way to get there is to tap and hold YouTube’s app icon, then click the little (I) or gear, which will take you to YouTube’s individual settings. One of them should be the app timer.
You want so badly to change an app default that it's the "bane of your existence", but you can't be jazzed to install LineageOS or whatever? That doesn't track.
There are legitimate arguments about product bundling and antitrust to be made, but the simple truth is that expert users with particular application tastes are very well served in the Android ecosystem as it stands.
Christ, google must be kicking themselves for being so permissive with android. Unless they impose similar requirements on apple, this seems like a punishment for being as permissive as they are.
Apple is not selling iOS to Samsung with extra conditions like : you should not offer other operating systems or you should not pre-install our competitors", "you should not make our apps uninstallable"
Apple is breaching the rules but in a different way
currently there are all microsoft-y nudge user till they allow then say "user accepted"...
case in point.
i have a moto phone that has stock android. very nice.
it has default sms as "messages". this app keeps nudging me to use "chat features" and other bs so the "dont use connected features" line is really small while accept is a big button. they dont want me to not accept so they keep pushing me.
same for "play protect". i have decided to not accept it so every often i install an app it asks me if i want to enable it.
same for "enable location". i keep my location off so when i have to use an app, i turn it on and i get a message "for better experience, tun on device location which uses google location service". so if i accept this, "google location accuracy" and "emergency location service" and even wifi scanning (sometimes) gets enabled so these are really scummy techniques.
i use F-droid as my default app store and aurora store to download apps not on f-droid.
haven't signed in to play store because i don't have a google account.
these "keep nudging till the user accepts" should be banned as well. if the user does not want to allow location accuracy, don't auto enable it.
Looks like they went way beyond the EU's restrictions. I doubt Google can do the whole "pay for Play Store by device unless you agree to install these other apps" workaround. Hopefully the EU will catch up here and the US will do something similar.
iv. Google shall not offer any monetary/ other incentives to, or enter into any arrangement with, OEMs for ensuring exclusivity for its search services.
Problem is, it's Apple. I mean lets be frank, is 15B even 10% of Apple's revenue?
Maybe it is? Maybe it's even more than 10%?
But I doubt it.
I mean forget revenue, I bet you could lob 15B off their profit from last year and they'd still be more profitable than they'd ever been.
If you want to hurt big companies like banks, oil companies, healthcare behemoths so on and so forth, you have to hit them where it hurts. You can't be trimming around the edges and expect changes in behavior.
> iv. Google shall not offer any monetary/ other incentives to, or enter into any arrangement with, OEMs for ensuring exclusivity for its search services.
Can someone explain why this is imposed? It seems like a fair deal if google offers money to samsung to be the default search provider.
How is it different from google offering money to mozilla for the same?
Setting as default is quite different from "ensuring exclusivity." I'd have no problem banning Google from paying companies to be the only search engine usable on a phone.
13. Accordingly, in terms of the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, the Commission has
imposed monetary penalty as well as issued cease and desist order against Google from
indulging in anti-competitive practices that have been found to be in contravention of the
provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Some of the measures that were indicated by the
Commission are as follows:
i. OEMs shall not be restrained from (a) choosing from amongst Google’s proprietary
applications to be pre-installed and should not be forced to pre-install a bouquet of
applications, and (b) deciding the placement of pre-installed apps, on their smart
devices.
ii. Licensing of Play Store (including Google Play Services) to OEMs shall not be
linked with the requirement of pre-installing Google search services, Chrome
browser, YouTube, Google Maps, Gmail or any other application of Google.
iii. Google shall not deny access to its Play Services APIs to disadvantage OEMs, app
developers and its existing or potential competitors. This would ensure
interoperability of apps between Android OS which complies with compatibility
requirements of Google and Android Forks. By virtue of this remedy, the app
developers would be able to port their apps easily onto Android forks.
iv. Google shall not offer any monetary/ other incentives to, or enter into any
arrangement with, OEMs for ensuring exclusivity for its search services.
v. Google shall not impose anti-fragmentation obligations on OEMs, as presently being
done under AFA/ ACC. For devices that do not have Google’s proprietary
applications pre-installed, OEMs should be permitted to manufacture/ develop
Android forks based smart devices for themselves.
vi. Google shall not incentivise or otherwise obligate OEMs for not selling smart
devices based on Android forks.
vii. Google shall not restrict un-installing of its pre-installed apps by the users.
viii. Google shall allow the users, during the initial device setup, to choose their default
search engine for all search entry points. Users should have the flexibility to easily
set as well as easily change the default settings in their devices, in minimum steps
possible.
ix. Google shall allow the developers of app stores to distribute their app stores through
Play Store.
and then pay % of your refund as a fee to CPA, so they help you maximize your refund.