Hacker News Reader

Comment by endisneigh | Hacker News Reader

It’s not clear to me what the EU, specifically, wants Google to do here from the article. Any insight?

Pay a fine, first of all :-)

Wikipedia has more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google...

> In October 2018 Google revamped how it would distribute its Google Play Store with Android in the future: Charging a licensing fee for the store, without requiring installation of Google apps, but making it free to pre-install the Google apps if they want.

> Furthermore, Google's hardware partners will be allowed to market devices in the EU that run rival versions of Android or other operating systems.

> In March 2019 Google announced that it will give European users of Android phones an option of which browser and search engine they want on their phone at the time of purchase to further comply with the EU's decision.

For example, not require that Chrome be preinstalled as the default browser on Android devices, and not require that a bundle of Google apps be preinstalled if any of them is preinstalled.

there is no way to delete safari from iphones

That’s Apple’s choice as the manufacturer of the device, while Google enforces conditions on Android device manufacturers. Apple would have the same problem if they would allow other companies to build iOS devices but force Safari to be the preinstalled as the default browser AND derive ad income from the use of Safari.

Microsoft chose to have desktop browser integration as the manufacturer of Windows. That didn't protect them from fines.

That’s not the same situation, Microsoft didn’t manufacture the PCs.

I know it’s a nuance but Apple doesn’t license its OS to other manufacturers. So while Google dictates “if you use the Android OS you must bundle Chrome”, Apple isn’t dictating terms like that to another manufacturer.

Technically Google isn’t really making anyone use Play Store, either. They’re free to use AOSP and bundle their own set of apps, no?

In fact, I’d argue these rules the EU enforces are counter productive. Manufacturers should fork android and band together and create their own App Store. Google will either cede their position or we’ll have a viable, growing third ecosystem.

This is what the entire ruling is about. They are not free to do so if they also sell with Google Play Services. It's the root of the entire issue is that the above requirement is in the agreements that Google has with manufacturers. The EU is striking down this type of agreement such that manufacturers will actually have that freedom.

The Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act will change a lot of things for both Apple and Google.

I would think the same and can only assume that apple is not as much of a monopoly as google/android in the EU. I think Vestager &co also wanted to have a solid case (as evidenced in the appeal losses right now) and the apple one was more difficult to establish? I don't know.

Apple's lawsuits are different

https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/25/22996248/apple-sideloadin...

This news is about Android.

That's absolutely not what the ruling wants.

Is this not already possible with things like LineageOS?

Its an issue with bundling. If a phone manufacturer wants to ship an Android phone with Google Play Store (and they all do), then they must also include a bunch of other Google stuff. The EU wants Google to license the Play Store but not force the inclusion of all their other apps.

So yes, a manufacturer could ship a phone with a de-Googled LineageOS. But they cannot today ship a phone with Play Store, but without Chrome, etc.

Interesting - thanks for the info.

It's about the contractual obligations Google forced on makers. What the user does with the device after purchase is out of the scope of this ruling.

No, what I mean is that manufacturers don’t have to include the play store if they don’t like Google’s requirements around using it?

Google forced them to take the Play Store and search widget (including default search engine) as a condition to get Play Services.

Play Services is required by a majority of android apps and developping and maintening a compatible system layer is just out of reach of most(all?) device makers.

Yes, but my point is - can’t they they just not use the play store at all like lineageos?

Ultimately Google will always have control over android if what you’re saying is true unless an alternative ecosystem is created

> can’t they they just not use the play store at all like lineageos?

This changes nothing about if google's behavior was illegally tying two products together.

You are bringing up a non-sequitor that does not change the law.

You’re asking if Motorola can’t just sell a phone that cannot run most of published android apps out of the box.

> unless an alternative ecosystem is created

That can’t happen while Google is free to do anything to crush potential competitors (they’re also found bullying makers out of bundling stuff like third party stores on their phones, and the chinese makers seem to be the only ones getting away with it), so the only way out is basically to lawsuit the hell out of the situation.

It’s for example not possible for Android device manufacturers to ship a phone with Google PlayStore installed but not also have Chrome be preinstalled as the default browser.

The original ruling:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-e...

Basically dirty stuff we all knew Google was doing, but kept getting away with until then

It looks like it's about forcing manufacturers to ship with chrome and the google search widget, so like the old Microsoft forcing IE upon everyone case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com