Complying with the EC’s Android decision
blog.google
blog.google
> we will introduce a new paid licensing agreement for smartphones and tablets shipped into the EEA
While it is bit vague, it certainly sounds like Google will be levying "EC stupidity tax" for all EEA devices.
So congratulations EC, you accomplished exactly nothing but making devices more expensive in your market and padding Googles pockets even more.
Something tells me vendors will be _encouraged_ to choose a particular licensing model or Google will make the full integration cheaper to keep Chrome and Search on as many devices as before this change.
Oh my, how I miss Maemo...
Consumers who can't imagine life without Google would drive the makers towards Google again while others would have the advantage of being exposed to more diverse services.
This is spun terminology. Everyone can use forked Android under the AOSP license. The "permission" in question is the permission to license Google's proprietary stuff under terms (i.e. alongside forked Android products) Google doesn't want to offer.
Now, one can argue that the EC decision was sound on principle (I'm mixed, personally). But it's not an issue of Google refusing to let people use Android. I mean, they never had to open source the thing in the first place!
So spinning this as "Google says you can't use AOSP" is just wrong. Users of open source software are fine. Proprietary licensees have to negotiate for their licenses and abide by restrictions the IP owner has put on the use.
And, yeah, there's an arguable point that at some point those restrictions can run afoul of antitrust statutes. And that's an argument worth having, and my personal opinions are, as I said, mixed on this case.
But none of that has anything to do with being able to use Android.
Google wasn't saying they couldn't use AOSP, just that if they did then they wouldn't be allowed to use GApps. Of course, if you want to be profitable then you have to sell devices. And if you want to actually sell any devices, then you're either going to need to bundle GApps or role your own competitive alternative. And of course rolling a competitive alternative is going to (of necessity) include duplicating the entire Play Store ecosystem. Yeah, totally doable, go right ahead and use AOSP.
It's kind of like the Mafia. We're not saying you can't compete with us, we're just saying that if you do compete with us then Tony over here will break both your legs. But of course, you're more than welcome to compete with us if that's what you want to do!
I do so love having the freedom to make choices under duress. /s
It works for Amazon and the various Chinese clones.
Alternatively: why are you mad at Google and not Apple? Apple doesn't let anyone sell a clone device!
You're saying that Google needs to be forced to sell the app suite to everyone on even terms, basically. That's not the way business works. There's no "fairness" requirement in contract law, and if you think hard about it you don't really want there to be one.
The finding by the EC was based on antitrust arguments, which have nothing to do with fairness and are intended to protect consumers and the market from exploitative monopolies. And for the third ?@!#! time, my feelings there are mixed, and complicated.
But your sarcasm doesn't really argue well here.
It didn't seem to work so well for Amazon from what I could tell. They use AOSP on their devices, yes, but they aren't what I'd call competitive in the smartphone market.
The Chinese ones are inapplicable because Google can't (yet) do business in China. If licensing GApps isn't an option in a given market, then everyone is on an even footing regarding its use.
> Alternatively: why are you mad at Google and not Apple?
I'm not fond of Apple and their walled garden, but I don't pretend to know how you could force them to open things up without being overly heavy handed. That being said, I also don't think they're relevant to this case because there's very clearly competition to them - there are (obviously) very feasible alternatives to buying an iPhone as evidenced by the sales figures.
So far you've managed to list three examples as supposed counterpoints, but I don't think any of them are relevant with respect to Google abusing their market position to force the hands of others. On the whole, I don't know of any major vendor of Android devices that does business primarily in the west (EU, US, CA, AUS, ...) and doesn't choose to license GApps. I'd tend to view the complete lack of meaningful GApps competitors in such a large market as clear evidence that it's simply not feasible to compete with them under the dichotomy they force on you.
> You're saying that Google needs to be forced to sell the app suite to everyone on even terms, basically. That's not the way business works. There's no "fairness" requirement in contract law, and if you think hard about it you don't really want there to be one.
Your statement about fairness (general case) doesn't follow from your statement about Google (specific case). In general, yes, I am well aware that there is no requirement of fairness in the general case; you seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about what I know and think. Google is very clearly not the general case, and I do think that they need to be forced to license the app suite to everyone on non-abusive terms at minimum. Apparently the EC agrees with me.
> The finding by the EC was based on antitrust arguments, which have nothing to do with fairness and are intended to protect consumers and the market from exploitative monopolies.
You keep bringing up fairness as though in response to me. I never said anything about fairness.
> But your sarcasm doesn't really argue well here.
On the contrary, I think it does. My sarcasm was in direct response to your earlier statements such as:
* "This is spun terminology."
* "So spinning this as "Google says you can't use AOSP" is just wrong."
* "But none of that has anything to do with being able to use Android."
These all seem comically out of touch to me. Google very much does say that you can't use AOSP so long as you wish to use GApps. As far as I can tell, this is roughly equivalent to saying that you can't use AOSP if you wish to be a reasonably competitive supplier of Android based devices in the west. I see no reason to sugarcoat those terms as anything other than Google very directly saying that smartphone manufacturers can't use AOSP.
* 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").
That last one in particular sounds quite abusive to me, given that I'm a fan of FOSS.
> it certainly sounds like Google will be levying "EC stupidity tax" for all EEA devices
Is it really stupidity to attempt to prevent a large international corporation from abusing its market dominance? Or are you perhaps suggesting that the EC should have backed down in order to avoid being bullied by Google?
It is stupidity to attempt and fail so spectacularly
I never claimed that Google would have larger margins, nor do I agree with that assumption.
First, the behavior in question. They abused their market dominance to force other companies to do things which were advantageous for them. They have been fined for it, have officially announced that they will no longer be doing it, and if they were ever to resume would presumably face further very steep fines. Moreover, this turn of events will hopefully give pause to anyone thinking to emulate their strategy in the future. Regardless of what happens to their margins going forward, there will almost certainly be less of this behavior.
More than that though, your assumption that their margins will increase doesn't make very much sense. If that were the case, why didn't they pursue this sort of licensing scheme previously? The obvious answer is that in their best estimate the new way of doing things will actually hurt their margins. Presumably driving users to their services was worth more than charging a licensing fee to offset the cost of developing GApps, as they make money off of user data. It also had the bonus of preventing any meaningful competition from developing - their search engine was installed by default (minimizes competition), their software was installed by default (minimizes competition), and you couldn't charge a licensing fee for a competing suite of software because their price (free) would always substantially undercut yours.
Even if you did somehow find a way to compete on the software front, you couldn't do business with any of the major manufactures. If they went with your software instead of Google's on any of their devices they could no longer license GApps at all. Ending their abusive licensing practices opens the door to companies offering devices with an Android fork if that makes sense for them. Importantly, it means that a top tier manufacture can now continue to offer official Android devices with GApps while also trying out a competing (unofficial) design. So yes, prices may go up in the short or even long term, but nonetheless Google's margins will likely be damaged.
Sounds like working as intended to me.
Then the rest of the document disappoints me, bitterly, for this reason: If I want to sell devices that host Android under Linux (or just offer both) can I do that? No. Not even under Google's new rules so far as I can tell.
See also: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-andro....
The latter fumbles breaking down what parts "Android" has, neglecting the Java Virtual Machine, and thus most of the OS.
More choice in what? Definitely not more choice in mobile Operating Systems.