EU hits Google with second antitrust charge
reuters.com
reuters.com
The contention is over Google licensing Android branding and its proprietary apps running on top of the AOSP and requiring them all be shipped together. The problem isn't the OS itself, it is the Play Store hegemony and the fact you cannot reasonably ship an Android phone without it - nobody would buy it. But the store is a proprietary and effectively closed app ecosystem completely under Google's control, thus the issue of monopoly exploitation.
At least, I hope. If they are seriously considering the whole OS as a trust issue that is insane. Anyone can fork or reuse the component parts below the Google app layer with the Apache 2 license. There are even projects like http://www.shashlik.io/ to run Android apps natively on other systems. The only part of the Android ecosystem that in any way really violates user freedoms (besides the proprietary POS blobs every phone manufacturer shoves into a forked Linux kernel with oodles of GPL violations) is the Google apps themselves, but you can always pull a Cyanogenmod and ship a phone without those apps installed.
isn't this what amazon does?
>There were many interesting anomalies in the launch of the Fire Phone. The $200 price tag for a 32GB version on an AT&T contract – the same price range as the iPhone 5S or Samsung GS5
Their tables are doing much better.
http://www.geekwire.com/2016/50-fire-tablet-vaults-amazon-in...
They are based on AOSP, but Amazon is expressly forbidden from using the Android name, and it can't use the Play store, so it's not really in the Android (TM) market.
source?
Android is a proprietary trademark wholly owned by Google.
See also: Leverage over manufacturers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29...
Google quote: "Android™ should have a trademark symbol the first time it appears in a creative."
Brand Guidelines http://developer.android.com/distribute/tools/promote/brand....
Yes, I do know who you are -- in fact, we have met -- but Google should not be using Android™ if it's not trademarked ;-)
That’s exactly what you can’t. Google only allows you to ship Google Apps on one of your devices if you ship it on all.
Which is the most important part the EC complains about.
Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using that monopoly to gain an advantage in newer markets is. And the problem with this argument is that you're getting this backwards: when Android 1.0 shipped, Google already had a foothold with Search, Gmail and Maps. The whole purpose of Android was for Google to have a mobile platform to not get locked out of the mobile market. They aren't making money from licensing it and Android wouldn't exist if they couldn't use it for distribution of their apps and services. And the same conditions applied then, as in you want the Android Marketplace (now Google Play) then you have to also ship Google's apps, with HTC Dream (the very first Android phone) shipping with Search, Gmail, Talk, Maps, YouTube, Calendar and Contacts. Did they miss anything important in version 1.0?
> The only part of the Android ecosystem that in any way really violates user freedoms
The "violations" on user freedoms that you're thinking of are subjective issues, not lawful ones. Android is the only mobile OS that allows for Firefox and for third-party app stores without jailbreaking it. Which means that users have the freedom to install and use any alternative they want, a freedom that's not available for the other mainstream mobile operating systems.
You can only ship non-Google-droid devices if none of your devices use the Play Store, and you can only ship Play Store devices if none of your devices are non-Google-droid devices.
That’s what the EU complains about, and that’s what is worthy of several billion in punishment.
"EU antitrust regulators said that by requiring mobile phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser to get access to other Google apps, the U.S. company was harming consumers by stifling competition."
I don't see Samsung and Kindle-Android mentioned. Also, assuming these are contractual obligations that Samsung agreed to, how can it be illegal? Don't they have people that read contracts? Or is this an issue of having your cake and eating it too?
> worthy several billion in punishment
That's stretching it. Why are they guilty and why should the fine be so big?
An example where this happened is http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers-...
The real question is, why is it bad for Google to require Google Search and Google Chrome if you want Google Play, but OK for Apple to require their App Store if you want iOS?
Obviously you have the positions reversed then, but it's still the same sort of tying, and I'm pretty sure those are the correct positions for Google too. You aren't pushing Google apps on people who want the Play Store, you're pushing the Play Store on people who want Google apps.
In other words they're also tying iOS to their hardware and vice versa. This is supposed to make it less of an antitrust issue?
> They are also very far away from a monopoly.
They sure look like a monopoly to an iOS app developer or iOS app customer who wants app store competition to drive down app store margins.
Android is 85% of the smartphone market. iOS is 13% of the smartphone market. Android is a monopoly, iOS is not.
Apple is acting independently. They've built differentiating features (like custom software) which you can only get by buying Apple's products. Apple hopes that customers will use their products because they're better than the competition. That is exactly what antitrust law is meant to encourage.
Google is not acting independently. They've built differentiating features, but licensed them under terms that prevent competition. Google hopes that customers will use their products because OEMs are contractually forbidden from selling competing products. That is what antitrust law is designed to prevent.
Then how do I have a stack of history books that say the government broke up the 20th century AT&T monopoly under the antitrust laws? And Standard Oil and U.S. Steel before that?
You seem to be implying that if Google did exactly what they're doing now except that they made their own hardware and refused to license Android to third parties then there would be less of an antitrust problem, even though then there would unambiguously be less competition than there is now.
The same if Android licensers were more free to provide their own solutions (see what Amazon did with the Fire brand) instead of forced to bundle Googles services on every device.
I think if a company wanted to create a strong branding, for which it would be known that the experience is distinctly NOT android (even if it's based on android) then that is more acceptable.
'Android phone' implies that the google play store and apps are on the device.
Licensing of Google’s proprietary apps:
The Commission seeks to ensure that manufacturers are free to choose which apps they pre-install on their devices.
Anti-fragmentation:
The Commission has found evidence that Google's conduct prevented manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices based on a competing Android fork ... In doing so, Google has also closed off an important way for its competitors to introduce apps and services, in particular general search services, which could be pre-installed on Android forks.
Exclusivity:
The Commission takes issue not with [financial incentives to ... smartphone and tablet manufacturers ... on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search] in general but with the conditions associated with Google's financial incentives, in particular with the condition that the financial incentive is not paid if any other search provider than Google Search is pre-installed on smart mobile devices.
[1]: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm
I love the bundle. I was happy with the iphone bundle but I did not love it.
My youngest daughter is very happy I came over to the darkside. She has been an Android user for a few year.
You can get Google's apps, but isn't the same thing. Their apps are a lot more polished on Android. In particular for Gmail the difference has been night and day. On iPhone I don't even bother with Gmail, I just use the default email app.
I think it's safe to say that this analyst has no idea.
I think that it is only fair that Android are allowed to bundle soft of their software with each Android release. Then again, I hate bloat ware so I kind of understand that point of view too. Maybe Android versions can ship a blank OS (no pre-bundled apps) and you have the option to opt-in to a 'suggested' package which would include apps such as Chrome, search function etc.
I'm not 100% sure I understood the EU commission's problem here (or rather why they targeted specifically Android/Google). Feel free to correct me where I am wrong.
I'm not sure if it is fair to draw the line at web browsers that render HTML.
But the reality is, what Google is doing IS illegal. It's illegal in the US too, but Google bought off the FTC Commissioner and fabricated some academic studies and donates to a large number of our current elected officials re-election campaigns. Aka: Our government won't touch them.
The thinking behind this is that you can't have terms that prohibit competition when you are the monopoly. If you do, you need to accept competition. In a way it's because Google has been too successful in Europe. It'll be interesting to see how the EU thinks a fairer market can be obtained..
The MS situation was similar in case that no-one used Windows just to use Internet Explorer, but the difference is that MS made it very unclear to disable/remove IE, not to mention the pain with setting the default apps (which came with XP SP2).
It's just an EU money grab (am EU citizen and only use Chrome).
Microsoft had already signed a consent decree with Janet Reno's DoJ. This specifically allowed Microsoft to add features to the operating system. In effect, it didn't have a choice about building IE into the OS. (1)
The later anti-trust case was based on the idea of tying (forcing someone who wants one product to have a second product as well). Microsoft said IE was integrated, not tied, while the DoJ said it was tied. (Microsoft eventually won that one 2-1 on appeal.)
> It's just an EU money grab (am EU citizen and only use Chrome).
Less of a money grab than the EU fining Microsoft big bucks for bundling Windows Media Player, and forcing it to offer versions of Windows without it. (The EU refused Microsoft's offer to bundle three media players with Windows.)
(1) Microsoft also componentized IE so that different programs -- including third-party programs -- could use components from IE. This wasn't such a bad idea at the time, before the browser became the main focus for malware attacks and we wanted it sandboxed.
> The MS situation was similar in case that no-one used Windows just to use Internet Explorer
Microsoft did a lot of shady stuff. One example is the "per processor" licensing that said, if you ship Windows on one computer, you have to pay Microsoft a royalty for all computers you sell, even the ones that don't run Windows. That's obviously very anti-competitive.
Google seems to be doing something roughly analogous with its requirement that if you ship a Google service, you can't also ship a different, separate product with your own changes. They are trying to use their leverage to prevent competition.
But is it the default the largest seller of android phones is samsung which makes all its own apps as default on its android phones. It even has its own appstore.The key points:
> requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;
> preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
> giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.
The other two points are problematic because they apply restrictions to business decisions the manufacturer can deliver independent of how those offerings do or do not rely on the ecosystem Google developed and are therefore Google leveraging its business position to reduce consumer choice in its favor.
Like you I do potentially have a problem with the second point - depending on the details. I think Google has good technical reasons to take measures to prevent fragmentation of Android. Incompatible ecosystems arising would have very real negative consequences for the very competition that the EU is trying to protect. (as in, the only reason there IS competition amongst Android OEMs is because there IS an OS with strong compatibility protections). What I don't think they can do is level those protections at a whole company level - you can't say "Acer can't make a variant of Android if they are also shipping a phone with Google Services". Now I would be OK with it if there's real potential for harm to the ecosystem - if Acer is shipping the phones which are incompatible and claiming they run "Android", for example. But if they clearly fork it as a separate OS, put out their own SDK with separate APIs etc. then Google has no business telling them not to do it. So even this one I could go either way on depending on the exact details of the circumstances.
Google gives away Android for free. If it can't put google search and ads on it, it won't be able to make money to keep funding Android. Banning Google Search from Android will cut its funding, not sure it would be such a smart move...
Someone has to fund that effort.
Look, I love Linux as much as the next guy - and I plodded along with Slackware, then Ubuntu, then Arch as my main machine for many years. Heck, I even used Gentoo as my main box for a while.
But let's be completely honest - Linux on the desktop compared to say OSX, or Windows, or even ChromeOS - doesn't even hold a candle, in terms of cohesive UX design, user experience, general polish etc.
So whilst the OSS community seems great at some things, UX design and the user experience for the non-technical user hasn't been one of them.
I would suggest Android is a much more consumer focused product, whereas Linux has been a much more IT focused product, and their development priorities reflect that.
Is this the basis of the charges? That Google, by requiring the bundling of its own (free) apps and search engine, is preventing some obscure company from potentially developing a potentially competitive OS?
EU seems to regard Google's insistence on a uniform OS with certain basic services common to every device that calls itself Android as "harmful to the consumer". Even though more forking of Android would lead to more fragmentation, which most of us would agree is bad for the consumer.
I fail to see what crime Google has committed, other than to run afoul of a bunch of bureaucrats who have nothing better to do than regulate, tax, and sue private companies for being too successful, at the behest of tiny competitors who are unable or unwilling to succeed through innovation.
If you want to sell at least one phone with the play store, all your other phones have to come with it, too.
You can’t just sell 50% with Kindle-Android, and 50% with Google Android.
This is severely hurting innovation and leads to an even larger monopoly.
If you try to use an phone with Google Play in China, you need a VPN, since if the app calls things like location services, it'll get blocked, for example, Taxi hailing apps could not retrieve the location, however with a native-phone, they work.
Needless to say, the experience of the fork of all of these services is inconsistent between devices and makes it less easy to move between phone vendors. One paradoxical outcome could be that you could get locked into XiaoMi, Huawei, etc.
Also, the experience of 9 different appstores is kind of jarring. I think it would be better if apps simply worked like the Web, and could be safe enough to stream-through and purchased through distributed payment systems.
Can you get cyanogenmod or something?
Would there be riots? Would governments try to force Google back? Like, are they so essential to digital life that a complete withdrawal would cause some amount of chaos?
And if that's the case, isn't an antitrust suit a bit disingenuous? Isn't that like saying "hey, you guys are dominating over here, we want you to stop, but we also are going to continue to reinforce your dominance by continuing to use all of your services"?
I mean Google is the #1 search engine basically in the world (excluding some Asian countries who have their own search engines) so if Google was to theoretically block all of Europe, it would be really hard to tell what would happen...
One of the best things to happen to the European tech scene since the beginning of the Internet.
You can see this happening in Russia, China and India although for different reasons.
Even if this case doesn't change anything I think we will see Google's involvement be reduces drastically in the next 5 years due to European Union laws and restrictions.
I think you massively underestimate how much investment is required to produce even a basic search engine, let alone one that eventually catches up to what Google has produced. And that's just search. Now throw in Gmail, Maps, Android, Chrome, etc ... these are international collaborations for a reason.
There's also Bing, and the various ancient abandoned former greats of search: Altavista (now Yahoo), Lycos.
Even people on HN who mention trying to use other search engines talk about having to frequently come back to google to find the result that they need. Whether that's us 'learning to Google' or Google being a superior product is up for debate.
search: bing, yandex, baidu, naver
email: fastmail, hotmail, yandex email
maps: bing maps, nokia maps, open street maps (or whatever the collaboration is called)
browser: firefox, etc
Antitrust concerns commonly get enforced against companies within the country raising those concerns, but I don't know of any example of antitrust concerns raised by a country against an entirely foreign company and used to block imports of the company's products.
Like them, Google has lots of staff and offices throughout the EU.... although (not uniquely) it uses various methods to avoid paying taxes ;-)
In the medium term? Having a social network with no Europeans on it kills G+ fairly rapidly, or it becomes a minority thing like Orkut. Likewise AppEngine is hobbled if it won't talk to Europe. People will undoubtedly continue to use and buy their Android phones (many of which are not bought from google but third parties) unless Google actively bricks them.
Remote-bricking all European Android devices is the nuclear option. Google is sued for billions. Google executives can no longer set foot in the EU without being arrested. International trade war starts. Google is declared an "unlawful combatant" and their HQ is bombed by DGSE.
Also, most likely, you would see bing+other local search engines gain traction, same for mail, maps, etc. Lets not forget, that a lot (majority?) of google search users use whatever the search engine is by default on their browsers and aren't really concerned about using google per se. Except search, a lot of folks where I live don't use google products (and if I switched their search engine they probably wouldn't notice that much except for saying it looks different)
In my city in northern Germany (300k population), Google hasn’t updated anything since 2004. Refuses to integrate transit, although transit data is available in the requested format.
While Bing and Here maps both have data from last month, with 3D imagery, and realtime transit data. Of course it’s easy to choose which maps app one will use.
And all the nice AI features Google has over Bing & Co – like Google Now’s "you have to go 5min earlier to work because of a traffic jam" obviously don’t work without realtime transit and up-to-date maps data.
That's not what the EC is saying. They're saying "hey guys, you're welcome to dominate over here, but as that dominant player you cannot use such and such licensing practices that we consider anti-competitive"
Massive lawsuits as Google actually sells services that would stop working, or that other vendors depend on.
Retaliation from the EU on alledged past violations.
Loss of revenue around 30-40% (just a guess) from losing EU customers (500M people market of first world countries) == lawsuits from its own US shareholders.
A wave of investments into EU newly found search market from all over the world.
Unsustainable political pressure from the US establishment to go back to EU ("we need that data and you're handing it to China or even worst, national states of Europe)
Tremendous loss of soft power and influence of the US on the old continent.
Financial default of tens of thousands of EU businesses, subsequent EU bailout, subsequent new protectionist measures over Internet businesses-
No more stupid comments on Youtube.
Who's that guy with a beard asking for money? It's Larry Page.
Websites all over EU begin to have a links section again.
Android gets banned, Nokia resurrects, with a big advertising campaign praising the long battery life and low radiation.
People cannot reach facebook anymore. They cannot look it up on Google and don't know what a domain name is. So they get on the road to ask other people how to reach facebook again. Then they become friend with them. And mate. Twenty years later Europe has now 10 competing search engines, the population had tripled as the result of mating and the average age has halved. They have far more less money than before, and they blame the greeks for that.
"European Union antitrust regulators said that by requiring mobile phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser, the U.S. company was denying consumers a wider choice of mobile apps and stifling innovation."
> EU antitrust regulators said that by requiring mobile phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser to get access to other Google apps, the U.S. company was harming consumers by stifling competition.
That’s exactly what Google prohibits.
If you want to sell one or two phones with the Play Store, all your other phones have to adhere to Google’s rules, too.
You can’t ship 50 phones with Play Store and 50 phones with Kindle-Android.
Amazon couldn’t use any of the major OEMs for building their Kindle devices for this same reason.