On the one hand, Google using it's app store advantage to strengthen search seems to me like it might be a monopoly abuse.
On the other hand, Google gave away an OS and built a whole ecosystem to protect their search (to the benefit of consumers). Consumers are actually winning from the arrangement (and aren't anti-trust laws supposed to protect consumers?). The losers are corporations that are less generous and less innovative than Google.
Since I'm a consumer, and not Yandex or Microsoft, I'm cheering for Google.
The problem with that is that it is a self perpetuating cycle and that the current situation is only better for consumers in the short run.
Google is better because they have more data from consumers, which gets them more installs, which makes them better.
It would be better in the long run for consumers if there is a real credible second source of search, since it keeps both parties honest and competing on the quality of the results -- and stuff like pushing your own sites doesn't start to creep in.
In theory, I agree with you. Everything I know about economics and organizational behavior seems to agree with you.
But it seems that's not how it's worked out in the past ten years, and probably not how it will work out in the next ten years. Google's incredible pace of innovation has not apparently been slowed by lack of powerful competition.
I'm cheering-ish for Google. I believe they've done things in good faith and even with an affirmative goal of fairness. It's fair to have to choose between making Google logo devices and making devices that support other ecosystems.
Google has to balance openness against keeping OEMs that are not good for the ecosystem from polluting it.
But they may have pushed too far with Google Play Services. GPS has many benefits in terms of being able to update older devices, but it also makes it more difficult to sell a non-Google-logo product because you have to duplicate much of what's in GPS for it to be viable.
Hopefully the result will be to add the platform-oriented features of GPS to AOSP or another open source project.
A worse outcome would be to have Google required to enable uglier forks of Android that also carry Google Play Services and Google's proprietary app suite.
The same situation played out a 100 years or so back with Standard Oil.
Good example. In 1904, Standard Oil controlled 85%-90% of the market. By the time the lawsuit was filed, mere two years later, they had already lost 15% of that, and by the time it was concluded, they only controlled 64%, due the the 147 competitors that were eating their business. Also, there no evidence that they actually raised prices to the consumer.
Google places strict rules on the phone, before you are allowed to get the license to ship the Google apps with your phone. Think of things like a locked bootloader at sale, no root at sale, but also other rules.
I can even think of legal issues that might be used by Google to not endorse a phone (violating IP patents in your phone's hardware, shipping it from an embargoed country).
And even then Google might decide your phone isn't worthy of their apps and not give you the license.
It's more that the Google Play store has such a marketshare (monopoly) that it can make or break a competitor's phone, which I think is what the EU is challenging here.
"Choose" is correct. OEMs can add their own apps. Those apps, like the Microsoft Office apps, can even be key to supporting other ecosystems. And not all of Google's apps are required to be preloaded on Google-logo devices.
The thing an OEM can't do is sell both a Google-logo device AND a device that excludes the Google ecosystem and supports a different ecosystem on the Android platform.
An OEM can, for example, sell Google logo Android devices and Windows devices and Palm OS (or what does LG call it?) devices and Tizen devices as long as they do not use Android as a basis for supporting non-Google ecosystems.
Or an OEM can choose to do anything at all they want with AOSP, including supporting a non-Google ecosystem, as Amazon does. But that means you won't see an Amazon Android with Google Play Services and Google's app suite on it.
Exactly. If you don't sign Google's agreement and include Google's app bundle, your product fails in the market. You cannot successfully sell an Android smartphone today without Google Apps, unless you're in China where Google Apps isn't available.
Give away their apps for free without any agreements, apparently. It's like trying to force Tesla to give everyone their motors, because customers want Tesla motors but can't get them without buying a product from Tesla - therefore Tesla should be forced to let other other companies build cars with their motors /s.
People liked IE. Not everyone and not forever, but people really liked it. We all know how did that end.
As an Android user, I couldn't give less fucks about G+, Hangouts, Music, Books, Sheets, Docs and probably some other me-too product launched by Google and still I have them installed in my phone and Google keeps trying to shove them down my throat. I don't need any of these for the Play store to work, that is the only place I can install software from unless I downgrade my phone's security, but apparently you imply I do.
Also, Tesla is not a de-facto monopoly on several European markets, which is the problem here.
If Apple or Microsoft had >80% of the market and provided the OS needed by every manufacturer (but two), then they could face similar issues.
I'm curious how you'd be downgrading your phone's security by installing software from a different app store or repository (or even just directly downloading it from the developer and installing it).
The way I look at it, the base Android OS is free to port to whatever you want/can but to get some commercial Google products like the Play Store and some of their apps, you need to follow some other terms that allow them to make money from these commercial offerings.
Either way, I find it much easier to run a Google-less Android than an Apple-less iOS and somewhat easier than a MS-less Windows. The fact that I don't have to "jailbreak" or otherwise exploit security holes to install software from other sources than the OS maker is a big reason I tend to use Android on mobile devices.
> I'm curious how you'd be downgrading your phone's security by installing software from a different app store or repository (or even just directly downloading it from the developer and installing it).
I have to enable "install software from other sources", which opens the door to ANY source other than the Play store. I've got the Amazon App Store on my phone too, and for that to work I have to permit installation from any source. That's downgrading my phone's security.
> Either way, I find it much easier to run a Google-less Android than an Apple-less iOS and somewhat easier than a MS-less Windows. The fact that I don't have to "jailbreak" or otherwise exploit security holes to install software from other sources than the OS maker is a big reason I tend to use Android on mobile devices.
That is true. The difference is most probably the market share and how the OS is licensed to hardware OEMs (iOS is not licensed - Windows Phone I've no idea).
Markets where most teenagers and families can't afford to buy multiple 500EUR phones and have to settle for something cheaper (where Android ate the whole market). These markets also happen to be the ones where, for the same economic reasons, people need a non-walled garden so they can pirate apps and games.
To be more specific, you can't sell it even without just the google app store and be successful, except if you have already a very big ecosystem behind (like Amazon)
The law which allows the EU to investigate Google’s alleged anti-competitive behaviour has the requirement of being between 2+ parties (i.e. Google and manufacturer), so that’s why Apple is exempt. I'm not sure if their dominant market share is actually a consideration, but it certainly gets the attention of the EU.
Because Apple builds its own phones and nobody else can use iOS. Google wouldn't be subject to this investigation if it didn't licence Android. If it built its own Nexus phones they would be in the same position Apple is. Instead it's in the position Microsoft was in the 90's.
Licencing an OS is being open? Because, remember, on (for example) a Samsung mobile only the Android frameworks and the kernel are open. The rest, including kernel drivers (SoC, etc), built-in apps, the Google frameworks and apps, etc are completely closed.
I think it's because things like Google Maps and Google Search are absolutely dominant in their industry and they try to use default Android apps (forced on manufacturers via the Play Store contract) to try to break into additional industries (like Google+, Photos, etc).
The idea being that forcing these additional apps, just to get Play Store is anti-competitive. I'm not sure I'd agree, but there's an argument to be had at least.
It's possible Apple could be too, but they've not used this to try to break into as many industries as Google has AFAIK.
What about the aspect where Google prevents Samsung from selling any phone based on AOSP that wouldn't be Android (tm) (i.e. Google ecosystem)?
Can you explain how you relate this to the Apple ecosystem?
There's a gray area there: While you surely will not be allowed to ship a phone with Yandex ecosystem and a phone with a Google ecosystem, you can probably get away with AOSP embedded in a washing machine or something like that. The "anti-fragmentation" agreement is enforced by Google retaining a final sign-off on the production version of products with the Google logo.
> In order to get the Play Store, an OEM has to agree to install all the other ‘required’ Google apps including Google Voice Search, Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Talk (now Hangouts), Google Maps and so on.
>The most important clause states that "Devices may only be distributed if all Google Applications... are pre-installed on the Device." Google apps are an all-or-nothing affair. If you want Google Maps or the Play Store, you must also take things like Google+ and Google's network location provider.
You do realize though, there's an intentional segregation there. Android is not the play store or any of those apps. Not at this point. Android is that OS itself and just the OS. If antitrust is an issue, then the case needs to be made against the distribution of apps that require licensing (google's apps and the store), not against android itself, which is fairly unrestricted.
Actually, Android is a Google trademark and you have to do what Google says if you want to use it.
Amazon uses AOSP but it can't call it Android.
This makes sense. Anyone could take AOSP and make it incompatible with Android (TM). If they could call it Android, that would mislead consumers.
The problem is that if you ship a single Android phone with Play etc, you are not allowed to ship any phones based on AOSP. In fact, Google just made Acer cancel the launch of an AOSP phone aimed at the Chinese market because it is already shipping genuine Android (TM).
Google develops and distributes Android Open Source OS for free. The costs for these activities are offset by Google's revenues from the other products like Google+. This is Android's business model. Also many phones come pre-installed with many other apps. Google does not firbid this. All of this is mentioned in TFA.
If you haven't got it dismissed then the best outcome is a set of commitments whereby you promise not to do the worst of the things you were allegedly doing (without admitting that they were bad things, accepting liability, etc).
Most of the successful parties, if you go through the list quickly by filtering on antitrust and cartel, appear to be EU companies.
An interesting question would be to analyse the full list (I only looked at the first page of results) and ask: Is the EU is anti-US, or whether US companies fail to understand the EU and it's concerns? The first page of data appears to suggest that US companies perform worse than EU companies at challenging the commission.
My personal opinion is that it is the latter. The (mostly North American) Googlers I spoke to all didn't seem to understand the case the EU made about the right to privacy, nor this one either... yet European engineers seemed to qualify their statements with more understanding of the bizarre balancing acts the EU puts itself into.
So far, Google's way of fighting antitrust suits has been to pretty much claim that the government is wrong and then not change anything. Some countries where Google doesn't like the results of a government ruling, they've just left or closed the relevant service. Google seems to have a questionable understanding that they're supposed to comply with the law.
But I'm not sure they can afford to lose the whole EU market.
> Some countries where Google doesn't like the results of a government ruling, they've just left or closed the relevant service.
Apart of Spain with Google News, and it was a law that was criticized by everyone but the big newspapers can you give us examples of Google closing services when they "don't like the result"?
I didn't said that Google paid the tax or that Google lost. IO said that Google didn't pulled off the service from Germany. They complied with the law and didn't put snippets
Well, they are a FOR-PROFIT Company and as any such entity when the cost of doing business is greater than the Profit (direct or indirect), they need to just close that branch.
You are surely referring to the tentative of several EU countries to get Google to pay newspapers while providing them with free referral links from a product that has no profit for them.
The problem with EU lately is that it's trying to protect businesses instead of consumers. This antitrust review is just another case influenced by Microsoft and Russian Search engines because no user is impacted negatively by Google policies in this case.
There are just two players in the market and the business practices of both should be used to determine what is common practice or anticompetitive.
Google started just a few years ago way behind ios. It got the share because of improvements in services - maps, mail, browser, notificaitons, and it’s OS. Apple has had a far more closed system around it’s default apps. While Apple’s apps have gotten shitter, Google’s default apps have gotten better.
I’d argue not the place to hit them. Focus the investigation on search- narrow the scope to that. They’ve got like 5 pending cases and it’s coming off as trying to stop US tech from “encroaching” on established EU businesses.
As a guy whose had to raise money- I get the “Google” question in almost every pitch. So I get there is an issue around search- but fuck their apps are good. I wish Apple would be forced to swap them out like Google Allows.
On the other hand, Google gave away an OS and built a whole ecosystem to protect their search (to the benefit of consumers). Consumers are actually winning from the arrangement (and aren't anti-trust laws supposed to protect consumers?). The losers are corporations that are less generous and less innovative than Google.
Since I'm a consumer, and not Yandex or Microsoft, I'm cheering for Google.