Google faces EU antitrust fine over Android case(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Google faces EU antitrust fine over Android case
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust/google-faces-eu-antitrust-fine-over-android-case-in-july-sources-idUSKCN1J31SP
146 comments
> by requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google Chrome browser
It's like 1998 all over again.
It's like 1998 all over again.
I'd argue not. Microsoft required payment for licensing the OS, Google doesn't.
It's patently unfair for Google the invest in most of the R&D got everything Android and not even expect a return.
It's patently unfair for Google the invest in most of the R&D got everything Android and not even expect a return.
Not requiring a license fee makes it worse for competitors than a paid license fee, doesn't it? Going for the free version is one of the strongest business moats, only the richest companies can afford that.
Microsoft got in trouble for giving IE away for free and embedding it in their OS so customers couldn't get rid of it and choose another option.
Google requires a fee for the OS customers expect: Android with Google Play. (and has every right to do so!)
Both are bundling other products with it, that's the problem.
Both are bundling other products with it, that's the problem.
They get their return, they don't need to force it down our throat.
What exactly is being forced down your throat again? Device makers can fork and build whatever version of Android they want (like Amazon does with Fire tablets). So who's tying you to a chair and forcing Google down you?
Google.
> - by preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
> - by preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
Baseless. Amazon has sold non-Google Android for almost a decade.
Google's abdroid has 0% penetration in China
Google's abdroid has 0% penetration in China
Except for the part that they forgot to pay Sun for.
What's the going rate for open source header files?
Currently the rate is around 172 euros.
https://www.iso.org/standard/57853.html
https://www.iso.org/standard/57853.html
I cannot for the life of me understand how Apple's ironclad control over the hardware, OS, and App store isn't considered vastly worse than this.
Google is enforcing their software on hardware made by other businesses by bundling things vendors want with things Google wants them to have. It's very similar to what got Microsoft in trouble in Europe.
Apple can enforce or restrict whatever software they want on their own hardware. It's not even close to the same thing.
Apple can enforce or restrict whatever software they want on their own hardware. It's not even close to the same thing.
Apple is not a monopoly. You don't like Apple, you go elsewhere.
In much of Europe, Android is the only choice.
In much of Europe, Android is the only choice.
Everywhere I have been the options are Android, iPhone, or a feature phone. Are there actually places where the other two are not an option?
Another commenter said it seems to be that Apple just doesn't have enough market share for anti-trust rules to kick in, which makes sense but also seems unsatisfying. A market dominating company being anti-consumer doesn't seem any worse than a smaller competitor being very anti-consumer, especially when that smaller competitor seems to be making much more money from their practices.
Another commenter said it seems to be that Apple just doesn't have enough market share for anti-trust rules to kick in, which makes sense but also seems unsatisfying. A market dominating company being anti-consumer doesn't seem any worse than a smaller competitor being very anti-consumer, especially when that smaller competitor seems to be making much more money from their practices.
Most European countries use pre-paid, with iPhone only available with contracts or prices that many cannot afford to pay.
So many times Android is the only option given budget options.
Windows Phone used to be the alternative and was about 10% when Microsoft killed it.
So many times Android is the only option given budget options.
Windows Phone used to be the alternative and was about 10% when Microsoft killed it.
Rubbish. Apple sell their phones in all of Europe.
It's actually really simple. In the EU Apple doesn't have that much market share to be consider for antitrust laws.
It doesn't even matter. If you start forcing other companies into contracts that say they may not use competitor Xs products, you will have an antitrust case on your ass regardless.
And we have seen the same happen with Apples bookstore. They obviously weren't a monopoly in the past, then or now, but they started drawing up contracts with multiple companies that were meant to be competitors and facilitating collusion between them. That is always an antitrust violation.
And we have seen the same happen with Apples bookstore. They obviously weren't a monopoly in the past, then or now, but they started drawing up contracts with multiple companies that were meant to be competitors and facilitating collusion between them. That is always an antitrust violation.
Fair enough.
Wondering why they haven't mentioned (ab)using their dominant position in search and advertising to push their desktop browser?
This doesn't make sense. Google gives away it's OS for free. It's the overwhelming major contributor to Android R&D. What's EU's expectation here? Just give it away for free without an expectation of profit?
This is in contrast to the old Microsoft that required payments of about $40 for their OS license, and they further restricted browser choice etc. Google is nothing like that, the Android framework and underlying OS is fully open source. There exist non Google forks of Android, Amazon being the most famous.
Then there's the whole worshipping of Apple - the most evil, monopolistic company on the planet. Apple's only recourse seems to be their ~17% hardware market share. Though, that's not really the lens to use. When considering the 'mobile paid apps' market, their position immediately moves into Monopoly territory, and in that segment that fuck with the developers and consumers in every way possible.
This is in contrast to the old Microsoft that required payments of about $40 for their OS license, and they further restricted browser choice etc. Google is nothing like that, the Android framework and underlying OS is fully open source. There exist non Google forks of Android, Amazon being the most famous.
Then there's the whole worshipping of Apple - the most evil, monopolistic company on the planet. Apple's only recourse seems to be their ~17% hardware market share. Though, that's not really the lens to use. When considering the 'mobile paid apps' market, their position immediately moves into Monopoly territory, and in that segment that fuck with the developers and consumers in every way possible.
It's about whether a market strategy makes it hard to compete for others, not if they make money on it or not, esp. if a company operates on multiple verticals - they offset "free" on one vertical with monopoly on the other (ads, search).
Similarly, if Google have billions in the bank, they can easily offer the Google Maps API free to all and kill any competing service (that took years to develop and lots of money to build). Once all the competitors have gone bankrupted or pivoted to find a source of revenue, Google can simply jack up the price of the API and cash in. Sure, Google loses developers' trust with this behavior in the long term, but it has worked so far for the monopoly so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No it's not. You cannot wripe away a monopoly's revenue stream in the name of regulation, you can however ensure that the competition isn't harmed in any way.
Google should simply offer a choice - install whatever competitor's service, but license Android for $30. Like Microsoft does and gets away with. Would that seem fair to you? Because that chat eventually gets passed on to the end user.
Google should simply offer a choice - install whatever competitor's service, but license Android for $30. Like Microsoft does and gets away with. Would that seem fair to you? Because that chat eventually gets passed on to the end user.
Antitrust law is for protecting competition; I think you’re confusing it with something else. It’s simply not the case that Microsoft “does and gets away with” antitrust violations because of charging money, this is mentioned in the article.
Also, I realized I’ve seen you a lot in these sorts of threads posting fanatically pro-Google stuff, what’s with that?
Also, I realized I’ve seen you a lot in these sorts of threads posting fanatically pro-Google stuff, what’s with that?
I'd suggest you keep your personal judgements like 'fanatically' to yourself. HN steers clear of personal attacks
Little silly. Google should just charge for Android and then credit if ship with their stuff. Problem solved.
Really think the EU risks getting a worse result with this type of thing.
Really think the EU risks getting a worse result with this type of thing.
Android was only successful because it was free. A licensing business model a la Windows wouldn't wouldn't have led to its current state of market dominance.
Might have been true when released but now they do not need to be free any longer.
Even a $1 per Android phone would get them almost $2B in revenues that goes almost entirely to the bottom line.
Windows on mobile has been gone too long to make a comeback.
It is hard to support two platforms, Android and iOS and doing a third is just too much.
Google just charges and then credits back when use their stuff.
Even a $1 per Android phone would get them almost $2B in revenues that goes almost entirely to the bottom line.
Windows on mobile has been gone too long to make a comeback.
It is hard to support two platforms, Android and iOS and doing a third is just too much.
Google just charges and then credits back when use their stuff.
> Little silly. Google should just charge for Android and then credit if ship with their stuff. Problem solved.
You really think that's going to be somehow treated differently?
You really think that's going to be somehow treated differently?
It might. If there was a fee, then theoretically other companies could offer to cover it. Google still gets paid, but other companies get a shot.
MSFT has struck deals with OEMs in the past where windows 8.1 was free for OEMs if Bing was the default search engine, and $10 otherwise (for tablets). You could argue they were not a Monopoly on tablets, but it's one indicator.
Another is the recent Google Shopping fight; the "resolution" to that has been that companies can bid to display their own complete slate of shopping results and Google Shopping now has separate accounting and must run as a profitable business unit. Google is still taking most of the ad traffic since it can afford to bid more than the people who brought the original complaint, but it does provide a way for entities to be there if they have a business not predicated on free traffic from commercial search queries.
It's not totally clear that this will be accepted, but if it is, then you could imagine a similar structural separation argument being used where Search & Android have separate accounting, Android charges $10 and Google pays phone makers $10 (the same way they pay Apple). While leaving a path for the status quo, this would let anyone building a search engine or mobile OS not have to build both at once to provide a competing alternative.
MSFT has struck deals with OEMs in the past where windows 8.1 was free for OEMs if Bing was the default search engine, and $10 otherwise (for tablets). You could argue they were not a Monopoly on tablets, but it's one indicator.
Another is the recent Google Shopping fight; the "resolution" to that has been that companies can bid to display their own complete slate of shopping results and Google Shopping now has separate accounting and must run as a profitable business unit. Google is still taking most of the ad traffic since it can afford to bid more than the people who brought the original complaint, but it does provide a way for entities to be there if they have a business not predicated on free traffic from commercial search queries.
It's not totally clear that this will be accepted, but if it is, then you could imagine a similar structural separation argument being used where Search & Android have separate accounting, Android charges $10 and Google pays phone makers $10 (the same way they pay Apple). While leaving a path for the status quo, this would let anyone building a search engine or mobile OS not have to build both at once to provide a competing alternative.
But from my understanding the problem isn't that there's cost to shipping Google stuff, it's that it's all-or-nothing. Changing the accounting rules doesn't make much of a difference if the surrounding contracts still prohibit the OEM from using competing products if they use any of the Google extras. And if they'd be willing to deviate from that under the alternative model, it IMHO wouldn't be much different from agreeing now change it.
Well then itemize the things so you can chose what to include with a big credit if you chose all.
There is almost 2 billion Android phones sold a year. So just a $1 is a lot of money and then almost all goes to the bottom line.
Part of the problem is Google giving away stuff for free and being different. Instead just become more traditional and charge people for things.
I hate it as love how much Google gives back but it is clearly hurting them to give away stuff for free.
There is almost 2 billion Android phones sold a year. So just a $1 is a lot of money and then almost all goes to the bottom line.
Part of the problem is Google giving away stuff for free and being different. Instead just become more traditional and charge people for things.
I hate it as love how much Google gives back but it is clearly hurting them to give away stuff for free.
This is a problem all over the place with Google. Them giving away VP8 and VP9 for example. SPDY and so many other things.
I hate it but they should just charge for things instead of giving away. Act more like a typical tech company.
They give away more IP than any other company I am aware of. But they do not get any benefit and get hammered constantly.
Just charge for things and end the open source and problem solved. Look at them giving away Android that is used on majority of Amazon hardware yet Amazon has banned all companies on their market place from selling Google competitive products.
That is just insane. They created SPDY and gave it away to the standards committee. Who then changed it to create http2 and they had to go back and change their code with additional cost.
The normal way is when you own the client and server you just use your own way to do things and use as a competitive advantage.
Borg was a huge competitive advantage and they just give away K8s. Which is just silly.
VP8 and VP9 they not only give it away but also even offer patent infringement protection to anyone that uses it. That is just insane.
It is great because the MPEG-LA was extorting money with license fees and Google giving away caused VP8 ended that.
But Google giving away just gets them hammered anyway and get no good will from doing it.
I have zero idea why Google continues to give so many things away for free and not just charge.
So charge per phone and then credit them if they include the Google services.
I hate it but they should just charge for things instead of giving away. Act more like a typical tech company.
They give away more IP than any other company I am aware of. But they do not get any benefit and get hammered constantly.
Just charge for things and end the open source and problem solved. Look at them giving away Android that is used on majority of Amazon hardware yet Amazon has banned all companies on their market place from selling Google competitive products.
That is just insane. They created SPDY and gave it away to the standards committee. Who then changed it to create http2 and they had to go back and change their code with additional cost.
The normal way is when you own the client and server you just use your own way to do things and use as a competitive advantage.
Borg was a huge competitive advantage and they just give away K8s. Which is just silly.
VP8 and VP9 they not only give it away but also even offer patent infringement protection to anyone that uses it. That is just insane.
It is great because the MPEG-LA was extorting money with license fees and Google giving away caused VP8 ended that.
But Google giving away just gets them hammered anyway and get no good will from doing it.
I have zero idea why Google continues to give so many things away for free and not just charge.
So charge per phone and then credit them if they include the Google services.
> So charge per phone and then credit them if they include the Google services.
That's unlikely to change much if they don't get rid of the criticized policies at the same time. The problem is not that they charge for inclusion of Google services!
That's unlikely to change much if they don't get rid of the criticized policies at the same time. The problem is not that they charge for inclusion of Google services!
They just charge for a license fee for Android and then credit back if they include their services.
Google has made it so people that can't afford to get an iPhone so they can get a smartphone.
They have helped make it so smartphone technology is not only for the rich.
Almost 2 billion Android devices are sold a year so does not take a couple of bucks for it to end up being a ton of money. Pretty much all going to the bottom line.
Either way people will still use Google services.
MS owns desktop yet most use Google search and not Bing.
Even browsers which is a hassle as you have to down load Chrome but still most use Chrome which has about 12x the market share of Edge.
"Firefox dropped below the 10% share value on Netmarketshare"
https://www.ghacks.net/2018/06/04/firefox-dropped-below-the-...
Google has over 5x of iE.
In the end it is just the Google offerings are better.
Really think it is a bad idea to penalize companies just because they offer better products.
Google has made it so people that can't afford to get an iPhone so they can get a smartphone.
They have helped make it so smartphone technology is not only for the rich.
Almost 2 billion Android devices are sold a year so does not take a couple of bucks for it to end up being a ton of money. Pretty much all going to the bottom line.
Either way people will still use Google services.
MS owns desktop yet most use Google search and not Bing.
Even browsers which is a hassle as you have to down load Chrome but still most use Chrome which has about 12x the market share of Edge.
"Firefox dropped below the 10% share value on Netmarketshare"
https://www.ghacks.net/2018/06/04/firefox-dropped-below-the-...
Google has over 5x of iE.
In the end it is just the Google offerings are better.
Really think it is a bad idea to penalize companies just because they offer better products.
Imagine if Google were French or German; would the EU be quite so keen to investigate?
Just like GDPR, lots of anti-European FUD about here on HN these days.
Yes they would. See: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
Good. There's nothing more annoying on Android than the Google app presence on it perhaps ironically and having this pushed at you all the time really puts you off.
And the Google Play Services mandatory for almost every third party app. And Google Location Services so that everytime you need to locate yourself, Google knows it.
The alternatives to Google's service don't necessarily offer any distinct advantage in terms of hiding your location whereabouts. https://f-droid.org/forums/topic/mozillanlpbackend-vs-apple-...
Android isn't the issue near as much as Google proper.
- One answer seearch results scraped from sites to be dominant in keeping ppl on Google
- Maps showing places scraped by Google
- Google results order
These are the real anti-trust cases.
These are the real anti-trust cases.
The 2016 blog post it refers to is presumably this one: https://blog.google/topics/google-europe/android-choice-comp...
Apple - OS only runs on their hardware, and you can only install applications approved by them.
Google - Allows any hardware manufacturer to use their OS, and you can install any application you want.
And yet the EU is going after Google?
Google - Allows any hardware manufacturer to use their OS, and you can install any application you want.
And yet the EU is going after Google?
Google has a near monopoly on smartphones--In my country Android has like 95% market share.
You can only abuse your dominant position if you have a dominant position, and Apple does not have one.
You can only abuse your dominant position if you have a dominant position, and Apple does not have one.
They seem to have 66% market share on mobile apps, and I'd say they are abusing their power as much as they can:
https://beta.techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/scree...
And if we're looking at e.g. "tablets", I wouldn't be surprised if they had something like 90% of the market, in some countries.
It's funny how Apple is simultaneously depicted "non-dominant player" and "the only mobile platform where you can make money", sometimes by the same people.
And if we're looking at e.g. "tablets", I wouldn't be surprised if they had something like 90% of the market, in some countries.
It's funny how Apple is simultaneously depicted "non-dominant player" and "the only mobile platform where you can make money", sometimes by the same people.
I think you’d be surprised just how many Amazon fire tablets are out there. They don’t get much mindshare because they’re cheap but I run into a non-trivial number of them at friends/acquaintances houses. Especially for kids.
Hard to know since Amazon doesn’t release sales numbers.
Either way Apple isn’t doing anything to shut down tablet competitors other than making a great product at a price people seem to be willing to pay. There aren’t tons of lawsuits or requirements that retailers can’t sell competing devices.
Hard to know since Amazon doesn’t release sales numbers.
Either way Apple isn’t doing anything to shut down tablet competitors other than making a great product at a price people seem to be willing to pay. There aren’t tons of lawsuits or requirements that retailers can’t sell competing devices.
If you size the market by revenue, not unit sales, I'd bet it's not very significant - especially in the EU.
You're conflating % of profit of the market with % of market share.
For example, Apple only has 10-40%[1] of the smartphone market (i.e. market share), but they capture north of 80%[2] of the physical device sale profits. There have even been years where they captured more than 100% of the profits[3]..
The same goes for the app store: iOS owners are often more likely to pay for apps, but Android developers make up this difference by including ads and tracking, which isn't 'consumer spend' but still makes money.
[1] depends on who you ask
[2] https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/04/17/apple-grabs-86-of...
[3] https://www.macrumors.com/2016/11/04/apple-smartphone-profit...
For example, Apple only has 10-40%[1] of the smartphone market (i.e. market share), but they capture north of 80%[2] of the physical device sale profits. There have even been years where they captured more than 100% of the profits[3]..
The same goes for the app store: iOS owners are often more likely to pay for apps, but Android developers make up this difference by including ads and tracking, which isn't 'consumer spend' but still makes money.
[1] depends on who you ask
[2] https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/04/17/apple-grabs-86-of...
[3] https://www.macrumors.com/2016/11/04/apple-smartphone-profit...
66% is not even close to a monopoly, and even if it was, "consumer spend" is not a metric that defines a monopoly.
In the EU, more than 30% makes you a dominant player
It's almost certainly a duopoly, though.
It’s not global percentage of a certain market that defines a monopoly.
Apple has 100% market share in the iOS market. Due to that fact they’ve got exclusive control over a significant percentage of the population - consider that customers cannot install another OS on the hardware they’ve bought and they cannot move their iOS apps on another Android phone either.
To make an analogy consider that you’d complain about your local electricity provider having a monopoly and I’d tell you that you can always move to another city or country, there, problem solved, it was your fault for staying there.
Apple has 100% market share in the iOS market. Due to that fact they’ve got exclusive control over a significant percentage of the population - consider that customers cannot install another OS on the hardware they’ve bought and they cannot move their iOS apps on another Android phone either.
To make an analogy consider that you’d complain about your local electricity provider having a monopoly and I’d tell you that you can always move to another city or country, there, problem solved, it was your fault for staying there.
> Apple has 100% market share in the iOS market.
And Linux has 100% market share in the desktop Linux market. But it probably doesn't count as a monopoly.
I do believe the significant market share of Apple smartphones is an issue, but as far as I know they haven't managed to make it a monopoly yet.
And Linux has 100% market share in the desktop Linux market. But it probably doesn't count as a monopoly.
I do believe the significant market share of Apple smartphones is an issue, but as far as I know they haven't managed to make it a monopoly yet.
I think both deserve to be investigated over anti-trust.
What I'd like Google to be investigated for in this Android case, and I don't think it was, is how the company bans virtually all forms of ad-blocking from the Play Store.
Adblockers are not illegal (quite the contrary), but they are a business conflict for Google. Given that Android is found to be a monopoly, Google should be much more restricted in how it decides to cut apps off from the Play Store, especially if those apps are a "problem" for its main business (just like VOIP apps once were for carriers, etc).
What I'd like Google to be investigated for in this Android case, and I don't think it was, is how the company bans virtually all forms of ad-blocking from the Play Store.
Adblockers are not illegal (quite the contrary), but they are a business conflict for Google. Given that Android is found to be a monopoly, Google should be much more restricted in how it decides to cut apps off from the Play Store, especially if those apps are a "problem" for its main business (just like VOIP apps once were for carriers, etc).
It's different in the EU, but in the US, being a monopoly is not illegal. What's restricted is 1) monopolistic actions like predatory pricing 2) mergers that might create a monopoly
Being a monopoly is not illegal in the EU either.
How do you take a monopolistic action if you have a small market share?
Google does not sell (much) smartphones. If you have several manufacturers selling Android smartphones where is the monopoly coming from?
To be successful, any Android phone needs the Google Play Store. And to get the rights to ship the Play Store, you (as a manufacturer) need to preinstall dozens of Google system apps and services. That way, Google has the total control (therefore monopoly) over the experience of nearly every single Android phone.
> To be successful
Then it's a choice on the part of manufacturers, not an obligation. Look at Amazon: they decide to do without.
Then it's a choice on the part of manufacturers, not an obligation. Look at Amazon: they decide to do without.
To be successful, you need to breathe. I will now remove all oxygen from the room. It's your choice, not an obligation, to then negotiate with me to provide oxygen. Unfortunately for you, there are no other oxygen providers to negotiate with. But you could, after all, grab some water and generate your own oxygen...
I think it's noteworthy that the only counterexample you can find is a tech behemoth with an even larger market cap than Google. If this was a person with an analogous scenario to be "successful", aka put food on the table, this would clearly be negotiating under duress.
I think it's noteworthy that the only counterexample you can find is a tech behemoth with an even larger market cap than Google. If this was a person with an analogous scenario to be "successful", aka put food on the table, this would clearly be negotiating under duress.
Following that logic, it would be impossible to dominate an OS market since an OEM always would be free to write their own.
Yes, the Fire Phone was a stunning success, and clearly evidence you can compete with Google's proprietary Android offering with your own fork. /s
I would argue Kindles are largely successful because they don't compete with proprietary Android in any appreciable metric: Google-flavored Android barely even attempts to compete in the tablet market, and Kindles are e-readers first, and tablets second.
I would argue Kindles are largely successful because they don't compete with proprietary Android in any appreciable metric: Google-flavored Android barely even attempts to compete in the tablet market, and Kindles are e-readers first, and tablets second.
Microsoft didn’t sell PCs in the 90s either.
People want Android with Google Play store. Google won’t let you do that without restrictions the EU says are anticompetitive.
People want Android with Google Play store. Google won’t let you do that without restrictions the EU says are anticompetitive.
They also didn't give away the source code... Anyone can ship a phone without the Google Play store, but almost no one wants to buy one. Check out the Amazon Fire Phone as an example, backed by one of the biggest companies in the world and you can fit the number of Fire Phone users in a small room and still have lots of room left over.
No, not anyone can ship a phone without the Google Play Store: if you ship one device with it, all your devices must ship with it.
That isn't that far away from Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. over Intel's exclusivity contracts.
That isn't that far away from Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. over Intel's exclusivity contracts.
Really? Didn’t know they did that.
MS had effectively the same rule too, didn’t they? Wasn’t that (one of) the reasons we didn’t see Linux as even a BTO option for the longest time?
MS had effectively the same rule too, didn’t they? Wasn’t that (one of) the reasons we didn’t see Linux as even a BTO option for the longest time?
> MS had effectively the same rule too, didn’t they? Wasn’t that (one of) the reasons we didn’t see Linux as even a BTO option for the longest time?
Until 1994: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/microsofts-1994-consent...
Note that the MS one was different: OEMs paid license costs based on computers shipped (with/without Windows), whereas Google requires complete exclusivity if you ship one device with Google Play Store.
Until 1994: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/microsofts-1994-consent...
Note that the MS one was different: OEMs paid license costs based on computers shipped (with/without Windows), whereas Google requires complete exclusivity if you ship one device with Google Play Store.
I thought the MS one was cost based. “It’s nice and cheap until you sell one OS/2 box.”
Thanks.
Thanks.
Honestly there were so many things wrong with the fire phone I dont think adding Google Play would have made any real difference.
They’ve been pretty successful in the tablet market.
But go into anywhere that sells phones. Carrier store, Best Buy, Walmart, whatever. Find a single Android phone that DOESN’T have google services on it. I’d be surprised if you can.
People want Android. And by Android they largely mean the Google Play Store and related services.
“It’s an Android phone, but none of the apps you see advertised are available for it!” No normal user is going to be happy with AOSP.
They’ve been pretty successful in the tablet market.
But go into anywhere that sells phones. Carrier store, Best Buy, Walmart, whatever. Find a single Android phone that DOESN’T have google services on it. I’d be surprised if you can.
People want Android. And by Android they largely mean the Google Play Store and related services.
“It’s an Android phone, but none of the apps you see advertised are available for it!” No normal user is going to be happy with AOSP.
Not a single Android phone in China ships with Google Play. So alternatives do exist!
They push their OS, which requires fees from and compliances with manufacturers.
The same analogy can be drawn from Microsoft and the desktop OS market in the 90s/00s. They had a monopoly Ewen though they didn't sell computers directly. They still strong-armed manufacturers, like Google is doing today.
The same analogy can be drawn from Microsoft and the desktop OS market in the 90s/00s. They had a monopoly Ewen though they didn't sell computers directly. They still strong-armed manufacturers, like Google is doing today.
> like Google is doing today.
any source for that?
any source for that?
Here are some examples:
https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/03/27/google-confirms-blo...
https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/10/04/google-announces-ma...
Also, you know, the article here and any evidence the EU produces against Google...
https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/03/27/google-confirms-blo...
https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/10/04/google-announces-ma...
Also, you know, the article here and any evidence the EU produces against Google...
Another analogy would be EU membership and trade deals, they curtail others members from doing any trade deal as well as charge a fee.
Though the sign of a true monopoly would be issues in trying to cancel the deal. Which is way easier with Android compared to many examples.
Though the sign of a true monopoly would be issues in trying to cancel the deal. Which is way easier with Android compared to many examples.
Google does control what equates to an effective monopoly of all smartphone software in the EU. You don't need to sell to have a monopoly that you can abuse.
Android is mostly open-source and nothing prevents manufacturers from forking it for their own purpose. Google play Services is not an obligation when you see things this way.
Manufacturers want the Google Play Store for the same reason Willie Sutton is said to have robbed banks: because that’s where the money (and the apps) are.
The effective monopoly is in access to the Play Store, which requires Play Services, which is strongly controlled by Google.
Google Play Services enable Google to guarantee a consistent UX across a wide range of OEM devices. Anyone with a Nexus device can build and flash an AOSP eng/debug image and manually install just the Play Store to understand why Play Services are a requirement.
How many computers did Microsoft sell in the 00s?
Microsoft forced OEMs to install Windows at the time. That's a slightly different situation. As far as I know Google is not force-feeding Android to anyone.
How did they force them? With a gun or something?
Google will threaten to cancel your Play Services license if you ship services (that have nothing to do with android) competing with them. Classic case of harming competition by product tying IMHO.
Google will threaten to cancel your Play Services license if you ship services (that have nothing to do with android) competing with them. Classic case of harming competition by product tying IMHO.
They forced them like this: If you're installing Windows on all your boxes, it costs you $X per box. If you install Windows on only some of your boxes, it costs 2X or 3X per box.
Your options are to install Windows on every box, to install it on none (not really an option for big OEMs), or to be at a cost disadvantage to your competitors. In practice, it was "install Windows or lose a big chunk of your business".
Your options are to install Windows on every box, to install it on none (not really an option for big OEMs), or to be at a cost disadvantage to your competitors. In practice, it was "install Windows or lose a big chunk of your business".
That sounds like a volume discount, which is actually encouraged under most capitalist models to capture consumer surplus. Its not exactly what happened. To put it simply, Microsoft used a complicated pricing model where the OEM paid a lump-sum to Microsoft based on expected sales and Microsoft applied zero marginal pricing so every copy of windows was "free". But if they exceeded their sales they then incurred a fee for every additional unit sold. If they increased their sales, then the lump-sum would have to be renegotiated for the next contract. They wanted to tax the 'output' of the OEMs instead of just selling them at volume. It was a form of predatory pricing which got them into trouble. I don't believe competing OSes were ever a big threat to Microsoft.
No. They gave a better deal to OEMs who used Windows exclusively
In what way did Microsoft force OEMs that Google doesn't?
Could you fork Windows at the time? No. You can fork Android anytime now. That's the difference.
You can fork AOSP, which I'm sure can't run any of the top 10 apps of the Play Store unless you install Google Services, which are closed source and require a licence from Google (which in turn requires you to bundle Chrome, make Google Search the default, etc).
AOSP by itself is pretty useless because it can't run any of the apps the public is interested in.
AOSP by itself is pretty useless because it can't run any of the apps the public is interested in.
*Can't run many of the apps. Lots of apps will run with limited functality. Chrome generally runs on AOSP, but it won't update and isn't nearly as capable as it would be with Google Services installed.
You can't freely fork the Android that's dominating the market: Android with Google services in it, key components of it are proprietary. You can't even sell some devices with it and others with an AOSP fork.
Microsoft did not sell computers but was found to have abused their Windows OS monopoly.
Marketshare of their OS and associated services, not their phones.
I think the problem is this part here:
>The EU competition enforcer will also tell Google to stop its anti-competitive practices such as licensing deals which prevent smartphone makers from promoting alternatives to apps such as Google Search and Maps
Apple is not force anything on smartphone makers because they're the maker, so that's fine I guess.
This case seems similar to the one that almost split Microsoft when they forced PC makers to not bundle Netscape.
>The EU competition enforcer will also tell Google to stop its anti-competitive practices such as licensing deals which prevent smartphone makers from promoting alternatives to apps such as Google Search and Maps
Apple is not force anything on smartphone makers because they're the maker, so that's fine I guess.
This case seems similar to the one that almost split Microsoft when they forced PC makers to not bundle Netscape.
> Google - Allows any hardware manufacturer to use their OS, and you can install any application you want.
Google publishes the stripped down version of Android because the original open source license demands it. It also bend over backwards to make that version as out of date and useless as possible, and as a result, non-Google Android clones make up a negligible part of the market. The official version of Android is tightly licensed, with a proeminent Google controlled app store that the hardware manufacturer cannot override etc.
So in reality, they are doing the same thing as Apple. But I believe you are correct, Apple too should be investigated for the way it runs its app store.
Google publishes the stripped down version of Android because the original open source license demands it. It also bend over backwards to make that version as out of date and useless as possible, and as a result, non-Google Android clones make up a negligible part of the market. The official version of Android is tightly licensed, with a proeminent Google controlled app store that the hardware manufacturer cannot override etc.
So in reality, they are doing the same thing as Apple. But I believe you are correct, Apple too should be investigated for the way it runs its app store.
Which original open source license? They mostly used the Linux kernel, which is GPL but doesn't extend its obligations to the userspace, and Apache Harmony, which uses Apache license, which isn't copyleft. Oh, and Bionic is derived from the BSD C stdlib, which again isn't copyleft.
Google violates a very clear concept in antitrust law known as tying or bundling: Forcing a manufacturer to install x and y apps in order to get the z app that they actually want. Apple is installing their own apps on their own phones, and therefore, cannot be violating the law in the same way.
The fact that Google forces manufacturers into this arrangement is exactly what makes it illegal. If Google was just selling Pixel phones with Google software, nobody would bat an eye.
The fact that Google forces manufacturers into this arrangement is exactly what makes it illegal. If Google was just selling Pixel phones with Google software, nobody would bat an eye.
Apple is free to not sell their OS to others. The app store could be problematic due to conflicts with Apple apps, similar to the Android issue, but does Apple dominate any market? Maybe one could construct a case if Apple dominates spending on digital media or something (Apple customers are often cited as spending more money), but even then it's kind of awkward that it's a minority of devices.
Google on the other hand clearly has the largest market share for phone OSes and uses that share to push other products.
Google on the other hand clearly has the largest market share for phone OSes and uses that share to push other products.
I very much enjoyed the "Apple has a monopoly on iOS devices" argument I heard in a different thread.
Apple has a monopoly on its business model, and on the willingness to eliminate legacy hardware mechanisms. Good luck finding a legal case for an abuse of either of those.
Apple has a monopoly on its business model, and on the willingness to eliminate legacy hardware mechanisms. Good luck finding a legal case for an abuse of either of those.
Until I can buy a Whirlpool washer from from Maytag or Ford has to sell me a brand new ‘57 Mustang the Justice Department isn’t doing their job. /s
Always interesting to see the arguments people come up with on the internet to justify their position on some other issue.
Always interesting to see the arguments people come up with on the internet to justify their position on some other issue.
Their business model isn't illegal, so there is no need to find any legal case.
You're now implying all manufacturers are abusers of their own monopoly.
Xbox games only runs on Xbox, MS should be charged the same way as Apple here.
Sony for Playstation.
Nintendo for Wii.
Etc.
Apple created iOS, just as MS, Sony and other companies. They have the ultimate control over it.
iOS is NOT a public platform nor does it belong to be people. People have no entitlement to anything from Apple in this case. You don't like it, just don't buy it.
Android is an open system, thus where the anti-trust starts to kick in quicker for Google than other companies because Google is demanding something that they have no ownership of. Forcing Android OEMs to use Google services in order to use some parts of Android that supposed to be available to everyone?
You're now implying all manufacturers are abusers of their own monopoly.
Xbox games only runs on Xbox, MS should be charged the same way as Apple here.
Sony for Playstation.
Nintendo for Wii.
Etc.
Apple created iOS, just as MS, Sony and other companies. They have the ultimate control over it.
iOS is NOT a public platform nor does it belong to be people. People have no entitlement to anything from Apple in this case. You don't like it, just don't buy it.
Android is an open system, thus where the anti-trust starts to kick in quicker for Google than other companies because Google is demanding something that they have no ownership of. Forcing Android OEMs to use Google services in order to use some parts of Android that supposed to be available to everyone?
You're violently agreeing with me.
Ah, my apologies, I’ve misread what you’ve said at the end there. It sounded like you’re saying there’s no legal justification.
I didn’t mean for it to sound violently but maybe I shouldn’t reply on HN too early in the morning.
I wish I could delete my post after a few hours.
I didn’t mean for it to sound violently but maybe I shouldn’t reply on HN too early in the morning.
I wish I could delete my post after a few hours.
No biggie. My phrasing could have been better: when I start to get sarcastic I rarely state my case clearly.
Google ties their OS to their services. They prevent smartphone makers from installing apps or services competing with their own. They're using their influence in one market to harm competition in another market. That is illegal as it should be.
Does google allow manufacturers to ship a FOSS version of their phones?
Yes, the Android Open Source Project(AOSP) is exactly that. OEMs need to tailor it to their device hardware, but they can fork it just like Amazon did with Kindle and Samsung did with TouchWiz.
It's interesting to see the HN reaction to this. The last time the EU fined Google a huge amount of money for anti-trust reasons the general sentiment here was that it was just socialist Europeans taxing American companies trying to make an honest living.
I guess Google is a lot less popular now compared to like two years ago.
I guess Google is a lot less popular now compared to like two years ago.
> The last time the EU fined Google a huge amount of money for anti-trust reasons the general sentiment here was that it was just socialist Europeans taxing American companies trying to make an honest living.
That was a common sentiment amongst Americans.
As a European, you don't really think "yeah, screw those American monopolies... but I like the European ones"
That was a common sentiment amongst Americans.
As a European, you don't really think "yeah, screw those American monopolies... but I like the European ones"
> I guess Google is a lot less popular now compared to like two years ago.
Or all antitrust cases are not identical on their merits.
Or all antitrust cases are not identical on their merits.
HN has been slowly alienating the people who would disagree (mostly by downvoting without replying), it seems. If I were designing HN today, I'd probably make it only possible to downvote a post if you have either replied, or upvoted an existing reply.
I happen to believe the US should begin reciprocal economic targeting against the EU if they continue down the path of attacking our tech companies via massive fines as a means to offset their inability to compete. Indeed, this outcome is guaranteed to occur. The US isn't going to just watch as the EU continuously steals billions of dollars from its top companies.
They're so far behind in the EU, the US would have to stop all technological progress for at least a decade to allow them to partially catch up. When Britain exits the EU, the EU GDP per capita will nearly be 50% lower than the US. Realistically they have no means to keep up with the US over time, they simply don't have the financial capability to do it, I almost sympathize with their desperation.
The US is booming, it'll add a trillion dollars to its GDP this year alone. Meanwhile half the EU is a perpetual rolling economic disaster still, a decade after the great recession began. Populists keep gaining more and more traction in EU countries, with Italy looking like it might be the next to leave the EU. It really is hard to blame the EU leadership for trying to find some way to extract value from the US economic dominion, given how weak the EU outlook is.
They're so far behind in the EU, the US would have to stop all technological progress for at least a decade to allow them to partially catch up. When Britain exits the EU, the EU GDP per capita will nearly be 50% lower than the US. Realistically they have no means to keep up with the US over time, they simply don't have the financial capability to do it, I almost sympathize with their desperation.
The US is booming, it'll add a trillion dollars to its GDP this year alone. Meanwhile half the EU is a perpetual rolling economic disaster still, a decade after the great recession began. Populists keep gaining more and more traction in EU countries, with Italy looking like it might be the next to leave the EU. It really is hard to blame the EU leadership for trying to find some way to extract value from the US economic dominion, given how weak the EU outlook is.
> When Britain exits the EU
This is looking less and less certain every day, not helped by the fact that the government has absolutely no idea what it wants or how to achieve it while increasing numbers of people point out that the "no deal" option results in total chaos: food shortages within a week etc.
This is looking less and less certain every day, not helped by the fact that the government has absolutely no idea what it wants or how to achieve it while increasing numbers of people point out that the "no deal" option results in total chaos: food shortages within a week etc.
I still believe even if happens, UK will eventually end up in a situation similar to Norway, Switzerland, with bilateral agreements, not changing that much in practice.
Out of interest, why do you believe that?
I have no strong opinion either way. But I was wondering if your belief isn't motivated more by your familiarity (with those scenarios) than anything else.
Personally I would note that in those examples you mentioned you have freedom of movement, which to me seems isn't a politically unacceptable solution in the UK.
I have no strong opinion either way. But I was wondering if your belief isn't motivated more by your familiarity (with those scenarios) than anything else.
Personally I would note that in those examples you mentioned you have freedom of movement, which to me seems isn't a politically unacceptable solution in the UK.
Not sure.
Yeah, I am familiar with those scenarios, which kind of allow those countries to benefit from EU agreements without losing too much of their independence, in comparison with other European countries.
I am also regularly in the UK, and for many people it wasn't clear what being outside EU meant regarding European companies with HQ in UK.
Having such agreements would allow a kind of win-win situation, leaving EU while allowing many of those businesses to stay in UK.
That is just a personal opinion, in any case I don't have any vote in UK matters.
Yeah, I am familiar with those scenarios, which kind of allow those countries to benefit from EU agreements without losing too much of their independence, in comparison with other European countries.
I am also regularly in the UK, and for many people it wasn't clear what being outside EU meant regarding European companies with HQ in UK.
Having such agreements would allow a kind of win-win situation, leaving EU while allowing many of those businesses to stay in UK.
That is just a personal opinion, in any case I don't have any vote in UK matters.
Off topic, but: I thought it was certain? That is, I thought that, once Britain invoked Article 50 (?), they were out in two years, guaranteed, no stopping the process, with the only question being what the new situation would be. Is there a path from here that doesn't result in exit?
I agree that the government doesn't know how to achieve anything positive out of the situation...
I agree that the government doesn't know how to achieve anything positive out of the situation...
It seems like if UK and EU agree (which institutions exactly is a good question) the Article 50 notice can be revoked, at least there's lots of support of that opinion around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_U...
Maybe it can be done unilaterally too.
Even if that weren't the case, I think it'd theoretically be possible for EU and UK to have an exit agreement retaining full cooperation, the UK leaving and immediately applying for membership again. That process could be quick, if everyone (which in this case would involve all member states) agrees about it... but could also be a point where some governments might try to strip the UK of privileges from it's current membership.
Maybe it can be done unilaterally too.
Even if that weren't the case, I think it'd theoretically be possible for EU and UK to have an exit agreement retaining full cooperation, the UK leaving and immediately applying for membership again. That process could be quick, if everyone (which in this case would involve all member states) agrees about it... but could also be a point where some governments might try to strip the UK of privileges from it's current membership.
Speaking of populists, remind me, who's your president again?
[deleted]
I think the US should control it’s own tech companies instead of letting them run wild so the rest of the world has to do it.
You just have to briefly skim that guy's post history to learn that he's an ideological warrior.
How would his post history be relevant? Do you think only like-minded individuals should be debated with?
> How would his post history be relevant?
Post history is relevant to assess if the person you're talking to has a very strongly set view on an extremely complex matter. If they do, that suggests that the reasons for the person spending time defending that view might not be motivated by exploration of ideas, but by evangelization of their view.
I think having an estimation of the person's motivation is important because conversations with people motivated by exploration of ideas can make for interesting, insightful and educational conversation, whereas the ones movitated by evangelization tend to be reduced to the same catchy but superficial arguments that they've learned over the years.
Post history is relevant to assess if the person you're talking to has a very strongly set view on an extremely complex matter. If they do, that suggests that the reasons for the person spending time defending that view might not be motivated by exploration of ideas, but by evangelization of their view.
I think having an estimation of the person's motivation is important because conversations with people motivated by exploration of ideas can make for interesting, insightful and educational conversation, whereas the ones movitated by evangelization tend to be reduced to the same catchy but superficial arguments that they've learned over the years.
> Post history is relevant to assess if the person you're talking to has a very strongly set view on an extremely complex matter. If they do, that suggests that the reasons for the person spending time defending that view might not be motivated by exploration of ideas, but by evangelization of their view
Strange, perhaps we have different motivations for debating? My goal is generally to learn and understand why someone would think a certain way in contrast with my own way of thinking. Their motivations for the exchange are irrelevant to this, if at the end of it they agree with me that's nice but it's not the objective. Personally my favorite occasions are when I'm proven to be wrong.
> I think having an estimation of the person's motivation is important because conversations with people motivated by exploration of ideas can make for interesting, insightful and educational conversation, whereas the ones motivated by evangelization tend to be reduced to the same catchy but superficial arguments that they've learned over the years.
This is the part I'm finding confusing, the entire paragraph feels very hypocritical. How can you claim to be open to ideas while simultaneously dismissing the ones you deem unworthy? Is it that your own motivations don't matter but the ones you choose to speak to do? Superficial arguments don't matter when the goal is to understand the reason THEY believe something. If you believe you have heard it all before and choose not to spend your time on it then that's one thing, but you purposefully injected yourself into a discussion without adding anything other than a snarky comment that implied another poster was unworthy of being spoken to due to their more polarized views. How can you justify this?
Strange, perhaps we have different motivations for debating? My goal is generally to learn and understand why someone would think a certain way in contrast with my own way of thinking. Their motivations for the exchange are irrelevant to this, if at the end of it they agree with me that's nice but it's not the objective. Personally my favorite occasions are when I'm proven to be wrong.
> I think having an estimation of the person's motivation is important because conversations with people motivated by exploration of ideas can make for interesting, insightful and educational conversation, whereas the ones motivated by evangelization tend to be reduced to the same catchy but superficial arguments that they've learned over the years.
This is the part I'm finding confusing, the entire paragraph feels very hypocritical. How can you claim to be open to ideas while simultaneously dismissing the ones you deem unworthy? Is it that your own motivations don't matter but the ones you choose to speak to do? Superficial arguments don't matter when the goal is to understand the reason THEY believe something. If you believe you have heard it all before and choose not to spend your time on it then that's one thing, but you purposefully injected yourself into a discussion without adding anything other than a snarky comment that implied another poster was unworthy of being spoken to due to their more polarized views. How can you justify this?
If smartphones were open we wouldn't have the whole problem. Why can't we have the model of IBM clones of the 80s/90s, where I actually own the device I buy. Right now, I can't even become root on my device without tricks (which one day may not even work).
> Why can't we have the model of IBM clones of the 80s/90s
Because that model was a costly mistake from IBM’s perspective, which they tried (and failed) to crush as soon as they realized what was happening (and later, by promoting a new proprietary architecture with the PS/2).
No one, on the supplier side, wants to repeat that model.
Because that model was a costly mistake from IBM’s perspective, which they tried (and failed) to crush as soon as they realized what was happening (and later, by promoting a new proprietary architecture with the PS/2).
No one, on the supplier side, wants to repeat that model.
And we ended up with MS being a monopoly, exactly the way the EU says Google is.
So it wouldn’t even prevent this problem as the OP proposes.
So it wouldn’t even prevent this problem as the OP proposes.
Conversely, if Google were more like Apple -- just building and selling their own devices and not (one might say) propping up the entire non-iOS industry, they also wouldn't have this problem.
So while I'm happy to be able to run LineageOS on my phone (with GApps installed, for the record) and would prefer it if manufacturers were able to pre-install Firefox, I'm also worried that we may discover the cure to be worse than the disease.
So while I'm happy to be able to run LineageOS on my phone (with GApps installed, for the record) and would prefer it if manufacturers were able to pre-install Firefox, I'm also worried that we may discover the cure to be worse than the disease.
Running it without GApps is by and large a pretty enjoyable experience, provided you don't use the communication apps that seem to break/work like ass if they are not present (signal for example, while technically available without google services framework will just never work right). Really the only ones that come close to working right are Telegram (although it will never shut up about google services and "not running without them", it will run just fine) and the builtin SMS app. Email can be procured reasonably well and I have a sizeable library of games that I got from old humble bundles (back when they were actually good) that are fairly enjoyable.
WeChat runs fine fwiw.
That model is available right now in any device sold with an "unlocked bootloader". It's generally going to cost significantly more than the same device with the "locked bootloader" which is the default, outside of Google's Nexus and Pixel lines which are typically unlocked.
People that do not understand why Android is free and fail to recognize how Google is using its dominating position in one market to dominate other market should read this "Laws of Tech Economics: Commoditize Your Complement" [1] and here HN discussion [2].
[1] https://www.gwern.net/Complement#2
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17047348
[1] https://www.gwern.net/Complement#2
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17047348
I don't think Google is using its dominant position in one market (search) to dominate other markets in any way other than financial - search pays the bills for developing Android. It's not like Microsoft did back in the day, where dominance in the OS was used to try to force customers to use IE instead of Netscape.
Google wasn't trying to dominate phones or tablets. They were trying to prevent Microsoft dominance in those platforms, because they expected that if Microsoft got dominance there, it would use it to drive all the mobile searches to Bing.
Google wasn't trying to dominate phones or tablets. They were trying to prevent Microsoft dominance in those platforms, because they expected that if Microsoft got dominance there, it would use it to drive all the mobile searches to Bing.
> In their Statement of Objections, the European Commission accused Google of the breach of EU antitrust rules in three ways:
> - by requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;
> - by preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
> - by giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.