Comment by pornel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pornel | Hacker News Reader

The TFA is actually pretty clear:

> The Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system.

And the complaint isn't about choice of OSes or any "anti-FOSS" bullshit, but about choice of search on Android and abusing their position to stop use of Android forks:

In particular, Google:

• 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").

Sure, and Pichai is saying it doesn't make good business sense for Google to spend a lot of money developing a mobile OS and then give it away for free unless they can use it to push their other products, like search. Google's business model was to give away the OS for free, but require Google apps to be bundled (in exchange for play store access).

So I have nothing against the EU decision, but Google's response is just common sense. They aren't a charity. If Google can't bundle their money makers with the phones, that kills the current business model and leaves them footing the Android development bill while getting nothing in return. So, they need a new business model; making Android proprietary is an obvious option.

That may be the argument. Yet it was considered by the commission & dismissed as there are ways to monetize android profitably for google without resorting to anticompetitive contracts.

> there are ways to monetize android profitably for google without resorting to anticompetitive contracts.

Interesting! What are these ways?

Supposing a manufacturer wanted to use Android on it's phones, they could pay a sum of money for the right to do that in proportion to the number of phones the software were installed on. This fee would cover Google's costs and need for profit. You could call it a license fee, perhaps.

Sure, I don’t have any objection to the commission determining Google’s current businesss model is anticompetitive or forcing Google change it. However, when google then does change their business model, no one should react with surprise.

That's the thing. The EU is not trying to tell Google how to make money from android. It's only saying it can't force installation of search and chrome. It's upto Google to find another means of making money that won't exploit their dominance in other markets

Sure, I have no problem at all with the commission’s findings or forcing Google to change its business practices.

But I find it weird when then people are shocked that google says it may make android proprietary. What exactly did people expect to happen? That Google would decide to develop Android as an act of charity to handset manufacturers and mobile carriers?

I wonder if Google could say "Android is free in the entire world, except Europe where it costs $500"

Yes, please. This would open room for competitors. Exactly what the commission wished for.

Would be a good way to kickstart competition against Android within Europe.

I would assume most android users think android is cheap rather than free. It would be interesting though to see their response to such price hike(if it ever happens)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com