Google faces Russia Android probe after Yandex protest
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
It seems to me that what they're talking about is actually that Google's cloud services package bundles default Google Search, and Google does not provide the user or vendors with enough flexibility here. Okay, I'll definitely grant them that. So they want to use Google's cloud infrastructure selectively for the Play Store, but not for other profitable and integrated cloud services? Sounds a bit like eating your cake and having it too. If you look at this way, it doesn't seem such a reasonable request, although I guess it would be better for the market if Google was forced to give in.
Edit: Warning - lots of downvotes in this thread, seemingly for any Google critical comments.
I think this is an exaggeration. Some developers make too many assumptions, sure, but I don't think you'll find many high-profile non-Google apps that don't run on a Kindle Fire tablet for this reason.
EDIT: People seem to think that Google Services contain the bread and butter of the Android OS, but if you look at what APIs are actually provided by them [1], it doesn't contain anything that is not a client of Google's cloud services.
I don't know if it's improved any since I gave up on low profile apps when using my Kindle.
1) How many apps will flat out refuse to run if Google Services are not present, as opposed to have reduced functionality? Having a dependency on Google's Services library only means that the app will use it if it is available, not that the app will fail if it's not.
2) How many apps use more than the Location / Maps / In-app Purchases API, which are implemented in a compatible way by all of the other parties I mentioned?
What about the Chromecast and Android Wear APIs?
I know that Chromecast OS and Android Wear they are both (sadly) based on closed operating systems and somewhat rely on Google APIs, but that shouldn't be an excuse to prevent people that don't want Google Services on their phone from using smartwatches over bluetooth or mirroring the screen to their TV in their own local network.
The Chromecast does not operate over a local connection. It is actually operated 'through the cloud' - if you are controlling your Chromecast, you're sending operations to your Google account over the internet, which are then relayed to your Chromecast which is also tied to your Google account. Note that Google supports a non-cloud dependent sort-of-alternative for Chromecasting called Miracast in AOSP.
Android Wear is heavily dependent on Google Now, Google Search's voice recognition techniques. An Android Wear device cannot do anything without access to Google's services - it is far more than 'somewhat dependent'.
So yeah, both are in Google Services because they actually fully depend on Google's services.
Android Wear would be just be as heavily "reliant" on Google Now as Android is. Google just decided to give it a proprietary version of Android that is heavily integrated with Google Now. Android Wear could do quite a lot without access to Google Services. It is actually pretty pleasant to use without talking to your watch.
It seems like we both have different points of view on this, but in my opinion Google has acted in a way that favours their interests over their customers' freedom.
Chromecast does have a new guest mode that allows guests to control Chromecast without connecting to Wifi network. Those commands presumably are relayed through Google servers. But it isn't turned on by default.
Chromecast does need to be connected to the Internet to download the receiver app that runs on the Chromecast. If the Chromecast could cache the app, or get it from the controlling app, it could run completely disconnected from the Internet.
Perhaps the downvoting is not from Google supporters but fro now accurate information
> This API is not the recommended method for accessing Android location.
> The Google Location Services API [...] is the preferred way to add location-awareness to your app.
http://developer.android.com/reference/android/location/pack...
It seems like Google is intentionally encouraging developers to switch to their closed APIs. Most developers will probably follow what the red warning message says instead of spending more time building another solution.
Google wants to keep control of all Android clone OSs, so they add convenience features to their closed-source libraries, encourage developers to use them, and force phone manufacturers to bundle them with their OS.
Bundling an alternative implementation of the API is probably a bad idea because of copyright.
They introduced a mapping API for Google Maps in Play Services because Play Services contains all client libraries for Google's services. The Google Services APIs are a container for all libraries to consume Google's cloud services.
This is not symptomatic of Google's evilness.
That'd be a fun case; you could just use their own arguments in Oracle v. Google against them.
You can see the internal Google emails here where they note SkyHook was more accurate than their implementation http://www.businessinsider.com/google-skyhook-emails-2011-5?...
And they force Motorola to stop shipping devices unless Motorola agrees to not use SkyHook.
The trial stated that this was not the case
So any large manufacturer can not try new innovative Android variants at fear of being cut off from Google Android.
Any source for this?
And, apart that Aliyun store had pirated Google apps, it was not an Android fork.
Still waiting those MADA clauses forbidding non Google Android
And no, that incident had nothing to do with whether or not Google apps available in Aliyun's store were pirated. Acer was told they'd be removed from the OHA if they shipped Aliyun's fork of Android.
If MADA is so confidential why you talk about some clauses as facts? Or you have proofs of them or you're just inventing things
> cer was told they'd be removed from the OHA if they shipped Aliyun's fork of Android.
Second time, Aliyun is not an Android fork
Why do you talk about things you clearly don't know? Are you just spreading FUD because of your hate against some companies?
Presumably (judging by comments on Russian websites), Yandex has got an agreement to include (or included) in the report documents that show you have to play by Google's rules and install Google services on every model in every region of the world once you signed the service agreement, or (even better for them) direct prohibition to pre-install Yandex services.
Please, stop talking about what you clearly don't know.
Still waiting those clauses that you post as facts. Can you link to them or not?
Then of course, the market is smartphones, not Android phones. If something is anti-competitive comes down to the market situation, and has usually very little to do with any specific behavior.
This wasn't always a requirement if you remember that terrible Verizon phone with Bing as the default (and impossible to change) search engine.
The question is whether Yandex can make a case for Android as a monopoly, and whether the choice of making an AOSP-based Android variant with a Yandex ecosystem isn't enough relief from such a supposed monopoly.
While this is true, the implications could be far reaching for companies here in the US
Since Apple has instituted their "walled Garden" approach to all their software and now Microsoft is doing the same with their software, it would open the door for more litigation against both companies as "monopolistic" if Yandex were to prove its case against Android.
The interesting question then becomes, if "monopoly" means not having choices once you've selected a company's OS (meaning you have to use their apps, their browser, their API's), or is it irrelevant since you do have a "choice" to go with whatever OS you want to use to begin with?
Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Abusing or attaining the status in certain ways are. Walled gardens can certainly be considered a form of monopoly, but that means nothing in the eyes of the law unless they use abuse their monopoly status.
You can change almost any default program, use alternative stores or sideload applications
And still waiting any single proof of that MADA restrictions. perhaps you don't find them because you even can't spell it right.
This creates a very chilling effect on the ability for competitors to land on the platform, as at best, they'll be an unwanted second service on the device.
Do you have problems understanding what a walled garden is?
But I can't understand - how can they force monopoly protest, being monopolists itself? Example - Only Yandex.Transport got API for public data (bus stops, Position Tracking) in Moscow. I am sure, that Google can protest them back. How Yandex had the nerve for this? Nothing personal, business only?
P.S. All above is about Russia context. In USA I don't know which maps are more detailed.
All Yandex services: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev...
All Google services: http://www.google.com/about/products/
Putin.
Moscow officials state that it is not the case, they're not limiting their APIs to Yandex only. Yandex is merely the first one to gain access.
Some services mirror Google's while being tailored to Russia/CIS audience: mail, yandex.direct=adwords, chrome-based yandex browser, maps, news, social stuff, cloud storage. Some services, like yandex market or rabota (job search), have no Google counterparts.
Also, their support is more responsive. So no, it's nothing like Baidu and more like Intel vs AMD.
While we are on AdWords/Yandex.Direct, is there any alternative to Wordstat from Google? http://wordstat.yandex.com/#!/?words=iPhone
As for shopping, interestingly, it works here: "Online stores shipping to Moscow, Russia", but it's quite simplistic. Yandex.Market is more like Amazon if you look at its parametric search and filters.
Shopping works if you use google.com, but if you use google.ru - it isn't there.
Yandex also possesses some unique domestic services that google doesn't have (market, taxi, traffic jams).
If you install Google Chrome, you do it voluntarily. It's not like the browser was forced up on you. I do understand why they sue for Android issue, as it is quite hard to find a good phone, running Android, that is not bundled with all the Google services.
Maybe you downloaded some software that also bundled Chrome by default: http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-chrome-bundled-with-real...
Same fate will catch Google. Unfortunately for them, they are a one-trick pony, which tries to play everywhere and all the other circus animals hate it for it. Vertical apps are challenging google search in a serious way and this trend will only continue. Microsoft will seriously challenge search with win10 too. Both on the desktop and mobile. Display is facebook's turf and this will only continue too. Cloud is not a feasable option for Google to compete in. Home automation seems kinda desperate. Google effectively has not competed ever for anything. Also, their leadership has a track record for sinking companies with poor partner relations. The once mighty google doesn't seem so invulnerable now.
It says a lot of the rest of your message
I don't think the old browser is even available on the newer versions.
No, they didn't. Bundling IE with Windows was one component of a wider pattern of behavior which, as a whole, Microsoft got in trouble for. They didn't get in trouble for pre-installing IE alone.
If you want to make that case, comparing the actual basis of the MS antitrust case to behavior you can show Google engaging in, feel free.
They do indeed form restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs. Through the MARA, anyone who dares create an Android device that doesn't have Google's blessing is permanently cut off from Google services.
Google's APIs no doubt favor their own services over competitors, where many features of synergistic behavior between services exist which are not represented in their public API.
And Google has absolute intent on continuing these practices. New marketing campaigns and shilled blog articles regularly advertise about the brilliance of their current direction, and they continue to add more and more restrictions on OEMs with every passing year.
(Using "Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct." from the Wikipedia article as a source for the other parts of the Microsoft case. Note the article clearly defines the IE tying issue as the principal claim.)
The actual basis was illegal protecting their existing desktop PC OS monopoly by tying, and illegally extending their existing desktop PC OS monopoly to the browser market by tying. Both the existing monopoly context and the purpose were important parts of what made the tying problematic.
Are you asserting: (1) That the market for apps sold via the Play Store is a "market" as that term is used in antitrust analysis, and one over which Google has a monopoly, or that (2) The Play Store itself, as a product, represents a Google monopoly within some market as that term is used in antitrust analysis (And, if #2, what "market")?
I didn't knew that Amazon had 20 Google apps tied to its Android devices
By the way, is calle MADA, no MARA. Perhaps, instead of crying for downvoting you have to inform better.
The issue is that the Play Store is tied to 20 other apps. In a fashion that violates both laws here in the United States and in other countries abroad.
If it violates so many laws it will be easy to provide at least one proof of that claim, isn't?
Can you cite the specific provision of U.S. law that it violates?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_%28commerce%29
Assuming that the Wikipedia article is factually correct on the requirements, provisions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all true.
It seems loosely correct.
> provisions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all true.
I'd love to see your analysis supporting the claim that condition 3 ("the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product") is true, including your definition of the relevant market and your analysis establishing that it is a relevant market under antitrust law.
Yes, the case was bigger than just that, but now you are just nitpicking my comment.
Fact: They were charged with illegally maintaining their existing PC desktop operating system market by, among other means, tieing IE to Windows in response to a perceived threat that a competitive internet browser market on desktop OS's would undermine its desktop OS monopoly, and simultaneously for attempting to monopolize the internet browser market by leveraging their existing Windows desktop OS monopoly through tieing IE to Windows. On both sides, the relation to the Windows monopoly was a key element of why they got in trouble.
They didn't get in trouble for bundling IE except in the sense that someone who gets a jaywalking ticket gets in trouble for walking.
Why? Attacking Microsoft in the 90s didn't make Netscape financially viable ($40 for a browser?), didn't fix Windows, didn't make the web better, and didn't do anything but guarantee an IE6-like wasteland as motivation to innovate was destroyed by the DOJ. The deal MS cut with the DOJ lead to OEM empowerment, thus guaranteeing that the laptop you buy is full of crapware.
EU-like policies of "browser pickers" are asinine annoyanceware that help no one and confuse non-techies.
I think this nerd friendly activism about browser choice is positively anachronistic. I mean, this like clamoring for zip choice or image viewer choice. Those ships have long sailed. Browsers are boring commodities. End users who want a different one can get one trivially.
Don't often spot spelling mistakes like that on the mighty Beeb, tut tut etc.
How about writing your own OS and creating an ecosystem for hardware vendors and developers first?
I think it would be better for society if smaller companies will be able compete with monopoly without requirement to spend billions.
What if something wrong with the "strategy" of being able to be a very successful third party in someone's else ecosystem?
Google is no monopoly. There is windows mobile, of course.
Corporations do their job to make money of course, but it's better to limit harm they can create when making money. Regulations are productive in many ways including regulation of possibility to destroy or significantly limit competitors and competition.
> What if something wrong with the "strategy" of being able to be a very successful third party in someone's else ecosystem?
Nothing wrong with it. The problem is that ecosystem owner can significantly limit competitors.
> Google is no monopoly. There is windows mobile, of course.
Strictly speaking yes, it isn't monopoly, but it is close enough to it, so it can use his position to harm competition.
How, how does "significantly limit competitors" relate to the requirement to make an explicit, conscious choice by the user instead of allowing a quiet change of device settings?
Not allowing any third-party search apps or not allowing to change the default app by the user could be considered as a "significant limit", but there is no such restrictions.
Google uses his position to set default options for apps and this mean he gets all "unconscious" (and too lazy) users. This is unfair (not backed by any real superiority of his apps) advantage. Yandex tries to change default options for some vendors and Google again uses his position to limit it (limit competition). I'm totally for users making conscious choice, but with status quo it is unconscious choice and skewed in the way that gives Google unfair advantage.
In generally this Yandex vs Google reminds me AMD vs Intel case [1] when Intel used his better position to limit competitor without having real superiority.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v.....
I am sorry, but Yandex is by no means AMD. It is ridiculous to suggest that Yandex "is second only to Google".
Currently I'm in a country that didn't recognize Kosovo independence and Google shows it as disputed territory, otherwise part of Serbia. Exactly the same way for Crimea and Ukraine.
It is neither of these companies job to take sides. The simplest way is to show to each party what they want to see.
http://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky/all/
>maps.yandex.ua
Most/all map vendors follow local politics in regards to territory disputes. I'm not sure why you think that's unusually generous of them. If anything, the Russians know that keeping UA under their thumb and using their services instead of western services is to their advantage. A more apolitical move would be having it listed as disputed on both maps.
Bill Gates is Frodo. Larry Page is Bilbo.
Well that certainly doesn't bode well for what the next five years look like...
Edit: Assumed you'd put them in chronological order. Bill Gates as Bilbo and Larry Page as Frodo is terrifying.