Google's Answer to EU Antitrust Complaints on Android
googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com
googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com
On the other hand, Google gave away an OS and built a whole ecosystem to protect their search (to the benefit of consumers). Consumers are actually winning from the arrangement (and aren't anti-trust laws supposed to protect consumers?). The losers are corporations that are less generous and less innovative than Google.
Since I'm a consumer, and not Yandex or Microsoft, I'm cheering for Google.
Google is better because they have more data from consumers, which gets them more installs, which makes them better.
It would be better in the long run for consumers if there is a real credible second source of search, since it keeps both parties honest and competing on the quality of the results -- and stuff like pushing your own sites doesn't start to creep in.
But it seems that's not how it's worked out in the past ten years, and probably not how it will work out in the next ten years. Google's incredible pace of innovation has not apparently been slowed by lack of powerful competition.
The "short run" is typically the scope relevant to laws and regulations, for good or for bad.
Monopolies are only good for the consumer in the short term and good for only the monopolist in the long term.
The same situation played out a 100 years or so back with Standard Oil.
Good example. In 1904, Standard Oil controlled 85%-90% of the market. By the time the lawsuit was filed, mere two years later, they had already lost 15% of that, and by the time it was concluded, they only controlled 64%, due the the 147 competitors that were eating their business. Also, there no evidence that they actually raised prices to the consumer.
Google has to balance openness against keeping OEMs that are not good for the ecosystem from polluting it.
But they may have pushed too far with Google Play Services. GPS has many benefits in terms of being able to update older devices, but it also makes it more difficult to sell a non-Google-logo product because you have to duplicate much of what's in GPS for it to be viable.
Hopefully the result will be to add the platform-oriented features of GPS to AOSP or another open source project.
A worse outcome would be to have Google required to enable uglier forks of Android that also carry Google Play Services and Google's proprietary app suite.
-when I type weather, a weather card is all I want, I don't actually want to visit a weather site.
-age/height/birthdate of [name] -> all I want is the info card .
"Choose" is probably not the right word here.
What can Google do about that?
As an Android user, I couldn't give less fucks about G+, Hangouts, Music, Books, Sheets, Docs and probably some other me-too product launched by Google and still I have them installed in my phone and Google keeps trying to shove them down my throat. I don't need any of these for the Play store to work, that is the only place I can install software from unless I downgrade my phone's security, but apparently you imply I do.
Also, Tesla is not a de-facto monopoly on several European markets, which is the problem here.
If Apple or Microsoft had >80% of the market and provided the OS needed by every manufacturer (but two), then they could face similar issues.
The way I look at it, the base Android OS is free to port to whatever you want/can but to get some commercial Google products like the Play Store and some of their apps, you need to follow some other terms that allow them to make money from these commercial offerings.
Either way, I find it much easier to run a Google-less Android than an Apple-less iOS and somewhat easier than a MS-less Windows. The fact that I don't have to "jailbreak" or otherwise exploit security holes to install software from other sources than the OS maker is a big reason I tend to use Android on mobile devices.
I have to enable "install software from other sources", which opens the door to ANY source other than the Play store. I've got the Amazon App Store on my phone too, and for that to work I have to permit installation from any source. That's downgrading my phone's security.
> Either way, I find it much easier to run a Google-less Android than an Apple-less iOS and somewhat easier than a MS-less Windows. The fact that I don't have to "jailbreak" or otherwise exploit security holes to install software from other sources than the OS maker is a big reason I tend to use Android on mobile devices.
That is true. The difference is most probably the market share and how the OS is licensed to hardware OEMs (iOS is not licensed - Windows Phone I've no idea).
You still have to click the .apk and install it. Same as clicking an .exe and installing it on Windows.
Why would a "Store" made by Joe Random be more secure then downloading an .apk and installing it ?
Cold numbers: http://www.statista.com/statistics/260419/market-share-held-...
It is perfectly functional
I can even think of legal issues that might be used by Google to not endorse a phone (violating IP patents in your phone's hardware, shipping it from an embargoed country).
And even then Google might decide your phone isn't worthy of their apps and not give you the license.
It's more that the Google Play store has such a marketshare (monopoly) that it can make or break a competitor's phone, which I think is what the EU is challenging here.
One of the rules is that you have to use Google's Play store and pre-install its proprietary apps.
The thing an OEM can't do is sell both a Google-logo device AND a device that excludes the Google ecosystem and supports a different ecosystem on the Android platform.
An OEM can, for example, sell Google logo Android devices and Windows devices and Palm OS (or what does LG call it?) devices and Tizen devices as long as they do not use Android as a basis for supporting non-Google ecosystems.
Or an OEM can choose to do anything at all they want with AOSP, including supporting a non-Google ecosystem, as Amazon does. But that means you won't see an Amazon Android with Google Play Services and Google's app suite on it.
The idea being that forcing these additional apps, just to get Play Store is anti-competitive. I'm not sure I'd agree, but there's an argument to be had at least.
It's possible Apple could be too, but they've not used this to try to break into as many industries as Google has AFAIK.
If you want Google Android on one phone you can't ship another model with AOSP version.
>The most important clause states that "Devices may only be distributed if all Google Applications... are pre-installed on the Device." Google apps are an all-or-nothing affair. If you want Google Maps or the Play Store, you must also take things like Google+ and Google's network location provider.
Actually, Android is a Google trademark and you have to do what Google says if you want to use it.
Amazon uses AOSP but it can't call it Android.
This makes sense. Anyone could take AOSP and make it incompatible with Android (TM). If they could call it Android, that would mislead consumers.
The problem is that if you ship a single Android phone with Play etc, you are not allowed to ship any phones based on AOSP. In fact, Google just made Acer cancel the launch of an AOSP phone aimed at the Chinese market because it is already shipping genuine Android (TM).
This is not "fairly unrestricted" ;-)
Tread carefully Google (and Apple...)
Google don't understand the EU if they believe that the way to fight the EU is to use a press release.
But I'm not sure they can afford to lose the whole EU market.
Apart of Spain with Google News, and it was a law that was criticized by everyone but the big newspapers can you give us examples of Google closing services when they "don't like the result"?
http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/5/7160587/german-publisher-a... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-axel-sprngr-idUSKBN...
If you have any evidence that Google is paying that "tax", please show it.
If you haven't got it dismissed then the best outcome is a set of commitments whereby you promise not to do the worst of the things you were allegedly doing (without admitting that they were bad things, accepting liability, etc).
Most of the successful parties, if you go through the list quickly by filtering on antitrust and cartel, appear to be EU companies.
An interesting question would be to analyse the full list (I only looked at the first page of results) and ask: Is the EU is anti-US, or whether US companies fail to understand the EU and it's concerns? The first page of data appears to suggest that US companies perform worse than EU companies at challenging the commission.
My personal opinion is that it is the latter. The (mostly North American) Googlers I spoke to all didn't seem to understand the case the EU made about the right to privacy, nor this one either... yet European engineers seemed to qualify their statements with more understanding of the bizarre balancing acts the EU puts itself into.
However, try making Google Maps your default map provider on Apple - or Chrome...
Very hard to make a case it's practice in apps in general is an issue here.
*Though I guess the fact that the Google apps are not on 100% of Android installs affects that number again.
Google started just a few years ago way behind ios. It got the share because of improvements in services - maps, mail, browser, notificaitons, and it’s OS. Apple has had a far more closed system around it’s default apps. While Apple’s apps have gotten shitter, Google’s default apps have gotten better.
I’d argue not the place to hit them. Focus the investigation on search- narrow the scope to that. They’ve got like 5 pending cases and it’s coming off as trying to stop US tech from “encroaching” on established EU businesses.
As a guy whose had to raise money- I get the “Google” question in almost every pitch. So I get there is an issue around search- but fuck their apps are good. I wish Apple would be forced to swap them out like Google Allows.