Apple does not have a <s>monopoly</s> dominant position. In my country I think they are like 10% of the market. You can't abuse your dominant position if you don't have one.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm (fifth paragraph)
But for this case, they are using a definition that makes Android even more dominant: they allege that Google restricts device manufacturers' freedoms. And from a device manufacturer point of view, Android has a 90+% market share of "licensable smart mobile operating systems", with "licensable" being key: as a device manufacturer, you cannot use iOS, so that doesn't count if you buy into this line of argument:
In particular, the EU alleges that if you want to install Google Play on your phones, you need to sign a license agreement which also forces you to: a) install Google Chrome; b) make Google Search the default search engine; and c) not sell phones with Android forks at the same time ("Anti-Fragmentation Agreement").
They want to force Google to allow manufacturers to more freely chose which apps to pre-install and also to be able to offer Android forks in parallel to "Google-finish" Android.
I'm not sure if this will really be good for consumers... I would argue that most smartphones have too much crapware on them, not too little. On the other hand, the Microsoft Internet Explorer unbundling case arguably helped fuel the success of Firefox in breaking the IE dominance, which I would argue was good for consumers.
* Symbian
* Palm webOS
* Mozilla (I think that was also called WebOS?)
* Jola
* Some blackberry thing based on QNX that "supported" Android apps
* Tizan
* Windows Phone
* Ubuntu PhoneThese days it feels like most people have given up trying to compete against Apple and Google.
The up and comer is KaiOS, used on super low-end phones in India. Its a version of the Firefox OS.
Interesting to note that a quick look on the Firefox OS Wikipedia article has highlighted a bunch of other mobile platforms I'd forgotten.
These alternatives mostly suck but "your competitors suck" is not grounds for an anti-trust violation. No phone vendor is forced to deal with Google, that's an absurd distortion of the facts. Even if they feel their own in-house engineering abilities are so weak they can't make a better platform than Android, they can still take the open source code and use it as a base, providing their own mapping and app store along the way ... just like Apple do.
[1]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-king...
[2]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/liechtenste...
[3]: http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/monaco
It gets much worse depending on the country:
- has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);
- made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and
- has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
This is the most clearly anti-competitive practice.
Google supports AOSP and has done so for years, making it available freely. Why shouldn't they be able to dictate their own terms? If phone makers don't like it, they can make their own OS (which they have - and they all suck).
> Google has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
Hence the fine.
You cannot have something open and control it at the same time.
> Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets.
> Google has engaged in three separate types of practices, which all had the aim of cementing Google's dominant position in general internet search.
If you don’t have a monopoly and do things your partners/competitors don’t like, they can’t complain that you are abusing a dominant market position to get away with it.
There’s nothing wrong with bundling. But when you have a monopoly on the market bundling suddenly is wrong and abusive even if it’s the right thing for your end users.
So we see time and again monopolies are knee-capped in the market and face these absurd fines, in the name of fairness and competition.
I have no doubt that some monopolies leverage their market dominance for some pretty atrocious dealings. I personally see nothing wrong with Google licensing the optional (but extremely popular) Google Play services such that it requires Google Search and Chrome along with it.
If they were unrelated then the experience of Google Play Services would be identical with or without the other pieces (Chrome and Search). I don’t use Android so I can’t say for sure, but I’m quite confident that the overall experience suffers without all three pieces together.
The EU text talks about requiring chrome and search if the play store is installed. As a user of android, I cannot think of any way in which these are linked. I don't see why the play store wouldn't work without those two, or would even lose a single feature.
I suggest reading this:
Using your reasoning, Microsoft could never have had a monopoly on Windows because you always could have bought a Mac.
You can't define a monopoly as "your competitors aren't popular" because otherwise it'd be illegal to invent new product categories, as at the start you'd be the only player in the new space. You can't define it that way for another reason: it punishes success.
As the sibling comment rightly says, monopolies are acceptable. But, as the EU clearly point out, a greater onus is put on monopolies to avoid abusing their monopoly power.
> Nevertheless, the Commission investigated to what extent competition for end users (downstream), in particular between Apple and Android devices, could indirectly constrain Google's market power for the licensing of Android to device manufacturers (upstream). The Commission found that this competition does not sufficiently constrain Google upstream for a number of reasons, including:
They are not punished for their behavior in the downstream market (in which they barely participate). They are punished for their behavior in the upstream market. We consumers do not participate in the upstream market.
Nevertheless, the EU commission considered whether the lack of a monopoly in the downstream market ameliorated the monopoly effects in the upstream market and found it did not.
There are.other mobile OSes available as well. I'm sure Microsoft will gladly let you use their OS for the right price, KaiOS, Ubuntu phone OS could be resurrected, you could role your own, I'm sure Symbian is for sale somewhere, how about Meego.
If you want to have Google apps on your phone you can't sell any forked android version.
The profit isn't from the direct sale of an Android device, it's from the system the device is a gateway to.
Like, own all cinemas in a country but home-viewing keeps profit low, so now it's fine to only allow people to visit your cinemas if they buy clothes from your clothing company?
Edit:perfect->problem