Antitrust: EU Commission Lodges Complaints on Google for Android OS | Hacker News Reader

Antitrust: EU Commission Lodges Complaints on Google for Android OS

europa.eu

34 pointsAissen10 comments

As I mentioned in an earlier story this week about the rumour of an antitrust action, this is very reminiscent of the Microsoft antitrust bundling convictions.

This seems to be the crux from the EU commission fact-sheet [0]:

"Android is an open-source system, meaning that it can be freely used and developed by anyone to create a modified mobile operating system (a so-called "Android fork"). The open-source model of course does not raise competition concerns – on the contrary. The Commission's concerns relate to the conditions for use of Google's proprietary apps and services on Android devices, which are not open source.

In particular, if a manufacturer wishes to pre-install Google proprietary apps, including Google Play Store and Google Search, on any of its devices, Google requires it to enter into an "Anti-Fragmentation Agreement" that commits it not to sell devices running on Android forks.

EU antitrust rules allow dominant companies to put in place restrictions only when they are objectively justified. However, to date, Google has not been able to show this in relation to the restrictions in the "Anti-Fragmentation Agreements".

The documents in the case are at [1].

[0] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cf...

What I'm missing is a list of things that Google has to fix, that is in the benefit of the "consumer". It seems that most things that would be in the benefit of the consumer have nothing to do with Google, but with the shitty manufacturers that don't provide (security) updates and stuff their phones with crap. Things that would help:

- force manufacturers to have an AOSP build without Google Apps or any of their customizations, updated when needed (security, new major/minor releases etc.);

- force manufacturers to allow users to exercise the 4 freedoms (FSF) with the above AOSP build up to and including the baseband/firmware/drivers;

- allow manufacturers to do whatever they want for their default OS installed when the user buys it (possibly signing a deal with Google for Google Apps etc.)

I keep on dreaming :-)

There's no legal reason to mandate FSF's philosophy, but banning the Android MADA has some huge consumer benefits, because it changes Google's priorities with Android.

For instance, right now, the Play Store, Chrome, etc. are used as leverage to get OEMs to sign the agreement. Without that, Google's value proposition changes. No longer does it make sense for them to withhold these. Google should want the profits from app or book sales and stuff on all Android devices. Why wouldn't Google want Kindle users to be able to install Chrome? Why wouldn't Google want Kindle users to be able to buy movies from Play?

And if Google opens up availability of their Android apps and services, this changes the dynamic considerably. They'll no longer be able to guarantee that any given Android device they offer apps on has the Play Services malware component. Play Services will need to be unbundled: Google apps will need to include everything they need to run on open source Android.

Not only does this open up the opportunity for Google services on other Android devices, it also means Google has a strong incentive to take some of their existing proprietary Play Services features and contribute them to open source, so that their apps can take advantage.

Additionally, Google has long used security updates as a stick to force OEMs to upgrade to the latest versions of Android. Without Android MADA level controls, Google will not be able to do that. So Google's best bet is to provide long-term servicing of their platform. Android versions will need to receive security updates for longer, and they'll need to be made as easy as possible for OEMs to integrate into their builds. Expect better written platform code.

But the biggest thing is that consumers will have choice. No longer will 85% of all phones in a carrier store be nearly identical clones of Google's preferred configuration. There'll be more reason for OEMs to innovate in different ways. People will have non-Google choices available in store.

Think about what Samsung could offer now that they couldn't before: Customize your phone's OS on order. Maybe Samsung offers a "Galaxy" config with all of Samsung's apps, or a Pure Google config with all of Google apps. And a Microsoft config for people who are going to use it at work with their Windows-based networks! Select the one you want, and Samsung can offer that, they're no longer beholden to an agreement that forces them to preload a prescribed set of apps.

You make some good points, and it would certainly help somewhat, but it won't solve the underlying problem. Instead of real choice and ability to buy something that will be under your control instead of the manufacturer or operator you need more than giving Samsung et al the ability to remove Google Chrome and install their own browser infested with spyware that no longer receives security updates after it ships and cannot be removed. If these constructs Google enforces on the manufacturers are indeed illegal, why don't Samsung, HTC, etc. not sue Google to get it sorted? I mean, it is a b2b problem.

A Galaxy config? Yeah, they have that now more or less, they offer many alternatives next to the Google ones installed by default that are in all ways inferior to the Google versions of those apps. They replace one big company services with another and do a worse job. No benefit for users.

Anything that does not bring benefits to projects like e.g. Replicant or CopperheadOS are in the end meaningless for "consumer" freedom and progress in the mobile device space.

Why do you make the assumption that anything that's not Google is infested with spyware?

The Google proprietary stuff, and some of the free parts in Android are also already spyware. But adding an additional layer of proprietary software is just no good for the user :-)

I mean, I can also rant about CyanogenMod using oCLock (or whatever it is called) that sends by default your exact GPS locations over HTTP (not HTTPS!) to Yahoo.

Allowing Samsung to put their own stuff on top will just not improve anything for the user, it will improve stuff for Samsung, but I don't care about that.

Not necessarily on top. Samsung can already layer more stuff on top, but this would enable Samsung to replace things. Now, yes, that might be exchanging Google spyware with Samsung spyware, but at least you can choose who's spying on you? (Using different services for different things can help keep all of your data off a single profile, at least.)

I'm so glad this is happening. My only fear is that Google will end up making the deals they make manufacturers sign different by region of distribution: That this decision won't help those of us living and buying devices outside the EU region. I really hope Google realizes that their agreements on Android are not in keeping with the spirit of Google's vision and morals, and apply changes to their business globally.

I'm conflicted on this from a practical point of view. It seems fairly clear to me that Android has got better the more Google asserts control. OEMs and carriers can't be trusted not to screw things up and the consumer tends to suffer.

Whilst there's good arguments in favour of forcing Google to allow alternative search, email etc services to be installed - I suspect it will result in a worse user experience for most people.

Worse user experience in the short term but much better for everyone (except Google) in the long term as new ideas and companies have a chance to survive and grow on the platform. It's very reminiscent of Microsoft and IE.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com