The European Commission versus Android
stratechery.com
stratechery.com
The author writes that due to Google Play Services, most Android apps are in fact Google Play apps and couldn't be used on a non-Google version of Android without a significant rework. I believe there's already a significant body of work on providing drop in replacements for Google Play Services, e.g. microG [1]. There is nothing that stops a manufacturer from providing microG instead of Play Services and hence cutting Google out.
Secondly, the author complains that:
> More broadly, the European Commission continues to be a bit too cavalier about denying companies — well, Google, mostly — the right to monetize the products they spend billions of dollars at significant risk to develop.
There's a huge rift in how most Europeans and Americans see the role of regulators but without getting into that, I want to note Android was not Google's effort alone and hardly a significant risk. Android as a software stack is built on the back of the Linux Kernel and a dozen other open source frameworks (Java, sqlite etc). Equally, Google is hardly responsible for the hardware. Manufacturer's like HTC and Samsung invested far more in making Google a success than Google did. The same manufacturers that Google has been screwing over with its anti competitive practices...
Android could find other, more transparent and competitive, revenue models.
Remember that article about how they acted like a toddler to Microsoft when the latter wanted to have a YouTube app?[1] All to keep WP from being viable enough to have a significant market share of users, especially users that didn't know or care enough to swap out bing search for Google.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/14/15970082/google-killed-wi...
I'd love to know how many of the people rallying around Google's defenses now were anti-Microsoft back in the day for doing what is basically the same damn thing they were doing with Internet Explorer, only IMHO worse because Google didn't even develop Android, they just picked it up and filled it to the brim with their software.
What Google initially bought was no where near a commercially viable product and any remnants of that legacy code probably don't even even exist in the Android code base of today.
>only IMHO worse because Google didn't even develop Android
Sort of like how Microsoft bought MS-DOS, the foundation for Windows 1.0, from Seattle Computer Products. Except for the part where Microsoft then tried to screw them over by suing them and ultimately settling out of court.
These are kale fed wolves. You'll be fine.
Generally, I'm anti-lock down and anti-spying. I bet a lot of those old anti-MS people feel like I do.
>All to keep WP from being viable enough to have a significant market share
This is a company that not only had to pay developers to write apps for their platform, but would also offer to write it for them. They were never going to have a significant market share because of their incompetence.
If you fully follow the money, it's mostly used to make local EU agricultural products cheaper, and for the government offices and jobs in Brussels and Strasbourg.
It will not happen, but if they really care about what they claim to care about, this is what they should spend the money on. Not sure if just putting a few on Google will help to get a better, healthier market.
That's like saying "but we spent a lot of money on really expensive lawyers to evade those taxes" when charged with tax evasion.
The sole thing that collapsing Google's Android position will do, is redistribute a lot of that market power and tech ecosystem benefit to a few other US tech giants, some Chinese tech giants and possibly to a lesser extent to some European players and Samsung. The US would net lose a considerable hegemony. As such, the US Government - State Dept, NSA, CIA, et al. - should get involved on a strategic economic security basis, and attack a very large EU company in a manner that is crippling (something worse than the Volkswagen emissions hit). We're in the midst of an economic war with the EU, the more vicious parts of the US Government need to start getting involved. At a minimum, find an excuse to perhaps take down eg Deutsche Bank, it's particularly weak, so a $10 or $15 billion invented magic fine would probably be enough to force its collapse and nationalization.
Citation needed.
> The fantasy is [..] evil money grubbing commercial interests.
What are you even on about?
>desktop Linux
What does "desktop Linux" have to do with anything in this context?
> The US would net lose [..] hegemony [..] State Dept, NSA, CIA, et al. - should get involved [..] an economic war with the EU ...
Or, less bat-shit insane, the US government could look at how different blocs implement anti-trust and consumer protection, and extend those to its own citizens.
> invented magic fine
Or Google could just have obeyed the law, American.
If we don't want to descend into nationalist mudslinging (or even war mongering) we have to consider each individual case based on its own merits. I think at least here on Hacker News we owe each other as much.
Anyway, you are right of course that we do owe each other that everywhere.
Except that microG doesn't work. It is even far behind Amazon's own implementation of GMS, and Amazon has dumped piles of money into it.
> The same manufacturers that Google has been screwing over with its anti competitive practices...
Surprisingly, the manufacturers aren't the ones filing the anti-trust complaints in this case. The case was brought initially by Oracle, Microsoft & company.
The Microsoft case wasn’t brought about by Compaq and Dell either even though they were being hosed [0]. While the case was brought by states and DOJ, there was lots of pressure from Netscape/Sun. Not really their hardware partners.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
Sure, but you can't make the claim that Samsung is then being screwed over by Google.
> Not really their hardware partners.
Sure, and Samsung preloads its own browser today.
Because you have no information to make that conclusion.
But if you want to make a wild guess, sure, go ahead.
So, change that refutation to "what is your evidence taht they are getting screwed over by Google?" On that, you have my complete agreement.
Samsung / Sony / etc are companies with a lot to lose, and they correctly calculated that "better the enemy you know". Their entire mobile business depends on a good relationship with Google, so it's blindingly obvious that they won't bite the hand that feeds them.
Internally, they're probably throwing parties that the big bully is punished by the headmaster.
Ouch, ad hominem attacks?
Come on, you can do better than this.
Oh come on.
The second point you are trying to make is not really clear.
Except the contract ??
Android is a massive, massive undertaking by any measure, and it doesn't matter that it uses Linux and other things.
"Manufacturer's like HTC and Samsung invested far more in making Google a success than Google did"
I totally disagree (edit: I disagree that they are spending 'massively more' but it's of course a lot) as most of what they are doing is commoditized, and the hardware aspects that they are actually competitive on ... those are differentiated in their models and they can capture the surpluses generated by that differentiation, which is to say those competitive aspects are not going back into 'Android' or any 'community' etc..
Unsurprisingly, it wasn't a good product, so it needed to be open source to gain traction, since no one in their right mind would pay for it. Furthermore, it needed the device manufacturers on board, since Google had zero mobile HW experience, as can be seen on how they handled their Motorola acquisition. So Google actually owes device manufacturers quite a lot. It couldn't have done it without them.
And you completely fail to appreciate how complex and important the Linux kernel is. Look at their Fuchsia effort: it was published in 2016 and was in dev for a couple of years probably. Still not ready for production. Now try to imagine what would happen if Apple had 3 extra years to develop iOS before Android was launched. Android would be stillborn. That's what Linux brought to the table.
The 'complexity' of Linux is not relevant - it's a part of the underlying platform, in much the same way that it is in so many other products.
Competitive manufacturers, mobile OS makers etc. all have access to the same Linux that Google does.
Google has invested massively in Android, it's a product of theirs.
If they can't 'bundle' whilst giving it away for free, their going to justify their investment by locking it up and selling it for money.
Furthermore, Google gained a lot of money through Android, it's in no way a charity or a gift.
And given that they gave it for free to destroy all competition, charging money all of a sudden for it might attract some regulatory attention even in the US.
There's no discussion about 'who invested the most', because it's besides the point.
The point is that Android is a massive investment - full stop.
Linux is irrelevant to the equation.
There is definitely a giftable aspect to Android in that manufacturers can use the software for free and leverage most of Google's investment for free without a cent to Google.
Of course Google is making money, and that's their objective, (nobody is going to state otherwise) however - because of the EU's directive, Google can't make money using their current business model, ergo, cannot recoup their cost or make a profit, ergo - the product is dead in that zone. Were this ruling to happen for North America as well ... either Google starts to charge for Android - or Android is put on the shelf.
Google invests heavily in Android, and if their current business model is not allowed, then they'll have to charge for it, which may mean all those who use Android 'for free' may not have the option, which is not good either.
The EU's ruling is kind of stupid and self defeating:
Is Apple allowed to bundle all their money-making crap? Of course?
Nokia? Of course!
MS? Of course?
So if Android is made totally private, and it only comes as 'one version' i.e. 'with all their crap' - is the EU really going to force Google to separate the products? It's completely stupid.
If the EU wants to force Apple to sell iOS separately from the iPhone, and force them to also remove all their bundled crap ... well then they can do that but the stupidity is even more exposed.
The EU should focus on getting their companies to make great products instead of stopping fairly benign innovators from doing stuff - and holding their own consumers back.
I would be shocked if 1). The licensing agreements with Google to get the Play Store in the first place allow that, and 2). If MicroG would be production ready. It might be fine for some enthusiasts and hobbyists, but I highly doubt it's ready to be shipped by default.
>Second, Google believes that the browser market is still largely uncompetitive, which holds back innovation for users. This is because Internet Explorer is tied to Microsoft's dominant computer operating system, giving it an unfair advantage over other browsers. Compare this to the mobile market, where Microsoft cannot tie Internet Explorer to a dominant operating system, and its browser therefore has a much lower usage.
By the way, I think it's absurd for Google to threaten that they may now charge a license for Android [2]. They're effectively saying that now that they've eliminated all competition over the past 10 years and achieved a dominant share of the market, they're going to raise prices. That's a slam dunk case even in the US's broken antitrust system.
[1] https://publicpolicy.googleblog.com/2009/02/browsers-powered...
[2] https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17585396/google-android-e...
https://www.androidcentral.com/theres-reason-youre-seeing-mo...
http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/worldw...
Subtract the iOS market share from the overall base, and is at 75% market share of remainder. The only strong competitor is UC Browser at 13.3%. This is an AliBaba product localized to mainland China. Remove that from the global market, and we end up with ~90% share for chrome in the rest of the world. That's antitrust territory.
Nope, massively popular in India.
IEMobile is ahead of Firefox!
I understand that iOS has no market dominance. But if iOS reaches 60% shares in a country, can the country demand substantial changes to iOS to encourage competitors? 70%? 80%?. Does a company need to make its product more open as it starts dominating the market.
Also, how would such market segments be defined for market domination? Phones? Smart phones? Phones with a particular characteristics? Phones with a particular OS(as phone inter operability is widely within OSes only)
As the press release of the commission says "market for .... licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system.". It seems using this vocabulary even Apple can be branded a monopoly, dominant in "unlicensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the iOS mobile operating system". Then isn't even apple using their dominance of "app store for iOS" to dominate other market segments?
I'm convinced this decision will one day seen as a mistake by the EC. Hopefully it won't destroy what is a now a healthy & competitive marketplace with a lot of meaningful choice for consumers.
I don't see how "unt[ying] the Play Store from Search and the Chrome browser," stopping "paying OEMs for portfolio-wide search exclusivity," or letting OEMs sell "devices with Android forks" helps Apple that much [1]. Android will still exist. Play Services and Store will remain Google's castles. OEMs will continue selling Google's bundle. All that changes is now they don't have to.
Worst case, Google adds a Play Services licensing fee. If this doesn't result in American antitrust action (for raising prices after forming a monopoly), all it will do is increase some phones' prices. If that matters to consumers, OEMs will be free to release non-Play Android phones at a lower price point.
[1] Stratchery
Android? Your cousin's Android may share nothing with yours, and so may your next Android phone with your current. You may not count on the same browser, assistant, mail, or maps being available in all Android devices.
You may argue that people will be sure to differentiate between Android A and Android B, but sadly, people have enough going on in their lives and want their phone to just work. Guess which OS provided the most consistent experience among devices and the most homogeneous app ecosystem?
From what I have learned with my interactions with non tech friends of mine, they don't want to know why such and such app is better than the default one. They just want things to look and feel the same and just work as long as possible.
You can argue that android already had custom skins on most brand's phones, but at least some platform apps used to be common. This may change even that.
There are deeper factors driving homogenization than Google Play Services. Those will probably remain, driving most Android users to a single fork. What this ruling does is make it possible that the next Android isn't dominated by Google.
Google could also pay them to install Google apps
What's not decent about the SE?
In fact, iOS market share in Switzerland is 65%[1]. It's also more than 51% in Norway, Sweden, Canada and Australia.
[1] http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/switzerland
They basically do the same thing (sometimes to an even greater extent) when it comes to bundling their own software with their hardware.
This is just getting disingenuous you'll have huge posts claiming that you don't need gapps and that f-droid works just perfectly, the vast majority of Android phones are sold without gapps or the google store that is Africa, China, India and parts of Latin America, somehow all of these including arguably the 2 largest single markets get along just fine without it.
Again, not a valid rebuttal. Just because someone doesn't have to use your product (and in this case, I would flat out disagree with your statement) does not mean you get to gouge them on the terms.
There are plenty of alternatives, the largest markets don't use Google, you can't cry that this is anti-competitive when it's clearly not the case since there is plenty of competition.
Google invested billions in Android it can do whatever it likes with it, you don't like it? don't use it, the alternative is for Google to either charge a feed to use Android which would be perfectly fine or to close it off to OEMs completely which again would be completely fine in this context and it would also avert the fine in both cases.
All this fine would do is A) force google to find ways to not pay it and they would likely not pay a single euro-cent in the long run, B) close the Android ecosystem even further down to the point where no other alternatives would be even possible.
If Google was not licensing it out, then sure, they could do whatever they wanted. But they are, and as such, they are not allowed to add anti-competitive terms to their contract. If they don't like it, they don't have to sell their services in jurisdictions with functioning regulators.
The problem is that it sucks the oxygen out of the room for so many fundamental technologies that we use today. How do you compete with the combination of massive resources and a willingness to give away things for free?
Why the law is there is of course another matter.
It's like if you go out and kill someone. That person may have been a really, really horrible person that our society is measuredly better off without. But unless there's some kind of self-defense involved, you're facing a sentence to prison.
I'm not trying to equate killing with monopoly abuse, but I find it odd that the principle that if you break the law, you face the consequences results in so much questioning.
These cases are meticulously prepared and come from complaints filed with the authorities. If you read all the paperwork, you'd most likely come to the same conclusion: Google abused their dominant market position.
I disagree. I think it's there (or should be there) to protect society/consumers, and that's it. I am saying that by excluding all other consumer effects and pretending that it's there to protect competitors potentially at the harm of society is invalid. Sometimes they align, sometimes they don't.
> I'm not trying to equate killing with monopoly abuse, but I find it odd that the principle that if you break the law, you face the consequences results in so much questioning.
Because the law is vague and subjective. It's not like we have algorithms or robots determining guilt. The thing that is odd is confusing questioning of the law with questioning of the idea of breaking laws. And I agree they probably did abuse their position, but that doesn't relate specifically to the comment you're responding to which is more about whether abuse is all that should be taken into consideration.
This could be seen another way. Instead of going too far with its contracts, i.e. limiting the supplier side, the results of these regulations should entice future companies to not go too far on their distribution, i.e. limiting the demand side.
If it becomes clear that having a dominant position in a market can be problematic, a reasonable company might do things to prevent it from happening including limiting growth, raising prices, stymying third-party ecosystems/distributions, and reducing feature investment. It can be argued that these punishments are predictable and easily avoided with self regulation, we just need to be sure we're happy with the forms this self regulation may take. Being in a dominant position is rare for sure, but in these rare cases, if I had a choice, I'd do everything I can do be just under dominant.
Google might want to start realizing this with Chrome and surreptitiously support (...er...keep supporting) Firefox or not implement too many features before others can catch up.
From the article, the European Commission requires Google to respond to these three accusations:
> 1. Tying Google’s search and browser apps to the Google Play Store.
From the user's perspective, this is not even true. For example, Samsung devices ship with their own browser on the home screen [a]. The user has to seek out the Chrome app (that is pre-installed) in order to use it. Besides, Play, Chrome and Search are Google's products and they should be allowed to bundle them as they wish. Technically, they could be one app.
> 2. Paying OEMs to exclusively pre-install Google Search on every Android device they made.
This point is moot. Google no longer does that. In fact, unbundling the Play store from search will force a bidding war for the default search engine, which will end up with Google paying to add Search on a product they are giving away for free.
> 3. Barring OEMs that installed Google’s apps from selling any device that ran an Android fork.
This feels absurd to me. Google is under no obligation to offer an open-source version of Android in the first place. If they decide to retract the OSS version, which is well within their right, how exactly are OEMs restricted ? How is EU better off in that case ? Is EU going to _force_ Google to give away Android for free ?
[a] ..except in the US.
Regarding point 3, I've said elsewhere why Android had [1] to be open source and why they can't easily [2][3] make it closed source.
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17561391
[1] https://seekingalpha.com/article/4187253-first-look-operas-1...
The Norwegian company that used to be called Opera Software is now called Otello Corporation - they also sold the name of their company together with the browser. [3]
[1] https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/18/opera-browser-sold-to-a-...