> The European Commission has accused Google of abusing its Android market dominance by bundling its search engine and Chrome apps into the operating system. Google has also allegedly blocked phone makers from creating devices that run forked versions of Android.
Apple doesn’t have a dominent search engine to push down the throat of device makers.
They also don’t have an iOS consortium nor do work with other makers, so there is no bullying makers into doing what they want “or else”.
As others pointed out Apple is not in a majority position in the first place, but this fine is mainly bound to how the search engine and google suitr services come in the picture, and not on android on its own.
Thanks for this. Anyone who has tried to compile a forked version of AOSP knows that Google makes it extremely hard to do so.
Android being an open source OS is nowhere near as easy to install as a regular linux open source OS.
I've been trying to get my own android / androidTV box working on popular hardware like rPi and other Amlogic, Allwinner, Mali based boards without much success. Even devices manufacturers have troubles with the same (talking about SBCs here).
Android is open source only for name sake. Google's deliberate control over the entire Android ecosystem is undeniable.
I'm not buying your first point. Within a month of OEMs releasing the Kernel sources, you can find builds of AOSP over at XDA, Lineage OS and other forums. And with the project Trebble in P, we have builds within a week. I don't think it is hard or Google is making it hard to compile.
As for your problems installing it on other boards, where are the drivers for them? Your classic desktop installation comes with drivers for almost every laptop/desktop board. Android doesn't because the vendors don't contribute. A snapdragon SoC requires a binary blob from Qualcomm. There is nothing you can do without it. It has nothing to do with AOSP being opensource or Google controlling it (Google controls other aspects, AKA the Play Services).
AOSP does not include proprietary apps like the Play Store, etc.
In order for device manufacturers to get the Play Store on their phone, they have to give in to Google's demands to add the Google search box on the home screen of the phones.
Apart from this, Qualcomm doesn't release open source drivers for GPUs etc, making it even harder to use pure AOSP on flagship devices.
Qualcomm blocked Google from using Proprietary Android on its devices! One of the Nexus phones couldn't upgrade the OS to the next version due to Qualcomm drivers.
> In order for device manufacturers to get the Play Store on their phone, they have to give in to Google's demands to add the Google search box on the home screen of the phones.
What's wrong with this? The Play Store is subsidized by search revenue, it makes sense to tie them together.
Android forks in China are not undermined by the lacking open driver support for Android.
There's a bunch of SBC manufacturers (pine64, odroid, orangepi, etc) worldwide that have managed to compile AOSP for questionable hardware. However, it is noteworthy that almost none have been able to compile images for Android 7.1 and above that work without hiccups.
Are you saying that simply because a multi-billion dollar company with top engineering talent is able to compile a version of Android that this disprove the comment you're replying to?
The logic is that you're not allowed to use your position in one marked to gain influence in another.
Google knows that most manufacturer needs their devices to ship with the Play Store, because that's where the apps are and smartphone without apps are useless. But they use the Play Store as leverage, forcing manufactures to also ship Chrome, rather than Opera, Firefox or their own browser and that's the bit that is illegal.
Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify, to force users to iTunes, and if they didn't then no iPhones on that carriers network.
That being said I don't think Google is using the Play Store to force installations of Chrome or the Google search app, that's just weird. People would install Chrome anyway and they already dominate search, so why bother. I think the reason is technical, but the end result is still illegal.
Based on what I see around me, people just use the first browser they see. Until someone with technical know-how comes along, people will use Edge on Windows (and usually complain about how the internet is acting up, but that's another story).
The same goes for Samsung and its own browser, simply called "Internet": people often have heard of Google Chrome but won't go looking if there's a working "internet button" right in front of them. Other vendors use the same trick.
Personally, I would think this is a good thing as it takes away some of the monopoly Google has, if Samsung etc. would just give their browsers regular updates through the Play Store/their own app store (latest version I can find on the Play Store still uses Chrome 59).
There is no technical reason to install the Google app or to install Chrome. Vendors can easily install their own WebKit/Blink engines for all the WebView/technical requirements (as seen by alternative ROMs) and the Google app can be deleted without affecting the other Play Services.
I think this is a ploy to prevent companies like Microsoft from coming with their own ROMs that focuses on Microsoft applications (Cortana, Bing, Edge mobile, Outlook, Microsoft Office etc., MS have a near complete stack of applications for Android) without offering any pre-installed competition like Google does.
Which only serves as strengthening Chrome's position (Chrome being a I/O vector for Google's ad market).
> and they already dominate search, so why bother.
Which obliterates any chance of a remotely widespread alternative emerging. The homescreen search bar is technically a widget like any other yet it is the only one that cannot even be removed from any stock launcher!
Imagine a manufacturer whose part of its proposition (whether through deals or genuine customer interest) is for whatever reason to sell a phone that comes loaded up with Firefox (or Opera) and has Bing (or DuckDuckGo, or Qwant) as a search widget. This is currently impossible and the decision aims to change that. The fact that Google uses its Android - because there is no viable alternative platform - and Play Store - because without the apps the platform is useless to the general public - dominance in the phone market to strong-arm manufacturers into preloading extensions of its search and ad market is a huge issue, turning the "Google experience" on Android into an all-or-nothing proposition.
But there is a related yet more subtle issue that isn't addressed: log into the Play Store, and you're helpfully logged into all other Google services such as Gmail, Chrome, Calendar, Photos... The only thing you can subsequently prevent is automatic syncing, but cannot disable each one of those services at all (unless you disable the whole app). So basically you log in to download whatever app on the Play Store and you turn on a huge firehose aimed at Google's datacenters. As an Android user the feeling I have of the "Google experience" is one of coercion, not freedom.
BTW your iTunes/Apple Music example is interesting, although it could be developed further to better match the situation.
>Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify, to force users to iTunes, and if they didn't then no iPhones on that carriers network.
Doesn't Apple already do this with the App Store? You can't buy an iPhone with Spotify pre-installed and Apple Music can leverage its position of not having to give another company a 30% cut to undercut spotify's prices.
Exactly. Google isn't blocking other browsers, so the analogy is flawed. Apple is forcing iTunes to be pre-installed, so they are using their dominance on the iPhone to push many other services.
going from the actual ruling against microsoft, that ruling was microsoft had a monopoly on Intel base computers and not computers in general. Apple has an even larger monopoly on A9, A10, A11 based computers. in fact they have 100% monopoly for those computers
But Apple does pre-install iTunes/Apple Music, and make money when users use the default music app rather than downloading alternatives. You gotta pay for the OS somehow, but people aren't willing to pay for OSes. So instead, Apple makes money through the bundled hardware (to use iOS, you must buy an iPhone) and Google through the bundled software (if you want to use some Google apps like the Play Store, you must also use other Google apps like Chrome and Search).
Yeah, what Google is learning here is that you should never license your OS/sell to other manufacturers and never make it open-source and just go the Apple route instead, create the device yourself and make the OS completely proprietary and closed.
Which would allow google to gain dominance in the mobile market... NOT.
Google/Android won because it was very open and flexible, but the moment they started to dominate they started to push their agenda on OEMs users…
Okay, now I am starting to see the argument against Google. Essentially, that they captured a lot of the market with "free" but are increasingly using the terms that come alongside this "free" to bully other manufacturers now that they're locked in with "free Android!".
They tried, but then Google had "free OS" that "everyone used" so it was almost impossible to make a dent in the google-verse. And now when they killed virtually any competition they are pushing their agent.
Recently KaiOS was gaining traction and what did google? Virtually bought their presence/dominance there… sorry "supported project".
If Google manufactured all Android phones, and Android were closed source, and Android came pre-installed with the Play Store, Search, and Chrome, I think it wouldn't be a problem, right?
Again, they can be ‘open’ (sell/give to other OEMs), they just can’t use contracts to force those OEMs to help them dominate other markets/kill Android competition.
That’s what they’re doing here, just like MS did in the 90s with Windows licenses.
"But I can't make this work unless I squash the competition by abusing my monopoly" is not a good argument for allowing it to happen, even if it were true here. The alternative is not to have no operating system, but to have a healthy market of other, possibly smaller, likely more operating systems instead.
In real life more operating systems means crappier software because now developers need to create versions for each one in order to be profitable, and not the "vast array on awesome options" open source enthusiasts would like to imagine.
It's a constant tension. In the real world single party government is more efficient than multiparty democracy. But most of the world hasn't clamored for single party rule unless it's their personalo preferred party
> Imagine that Apple forced telcos to block Spotify.
But they do. Telcos are not allowed to pre-install Spotify on iPhones, are they? iTunes on the other hand is pre-installed along with Safari, Apple Maps and Apple Podcast.
Of course once you have the device you can do whatever you ... can. Similarly once you have your Android phone you can install an alternative browser.
In fact I have had Samsung phones with two app stores and two browsers. Guess which one was was I unable to delete without rooting the phone first?
I am not a fan of whataboutism, but in this case it just seems unfair that the creator of a (more) open ecosystem is taking all the beating.
Note: I actually hate the search widget as well as the assistant, but there are hundreds of alternative home screen apps.
> Most companies aren't in multiple different markets.
If you sort public companies by Market Capitalization, how far down the list do you think you need to go, before you find a company that is only in one market?
Fining anti-competitive practices only makes sense when it's successful.
The EU laws around this are also worded as such. You can do anti-competitive behavior all you want if you're not a major player because you'll just be shooting yourself in the foot.
Neither of those actions are illegal per se, but just because you it's not illegal to dictate terms doesn't mean you're allowed to choose any terms you want.
The problem here is that Google allegedly dictated terms that gave them an unfair advantage in an unrelated market, breaching EU antitrust law.
A stricter antitrust law might have prevented them from gaining such a dominant position in the first place, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here.
IF Google had manufactured all of the phones themselves, and had never open sourced Android, then they could have kept Chrome and Search on Android, and there would have been no problem, right?
But because Google let other people manufacture Androids, and because Google open sourced Android, now it's a problem?
Google didn't write all of Android, there are GPL components. They didn't have the choice to keep it closed source, all of it anyway.
And secondly, they're not being punished for having an open source operating system. They're being punished for forcing manufacturers to install their suite of software (simplified). It's not because they open sourced Android. I repeat, it's NOT BECAUSE THEY OPEN SOURCED ANDROID.
The terms wouldn't prohibit Samsung from making phones with another OS.
The terms would say that Samsung installs the version of Android 2 (the new and closed source one) that Google tells it to. As manufacturing partners are always told what to do.
No, Microsoft was fined for forcing OEMs to install IE and not preinstall other browsers on PCs if they wanted Windows. It had nothing to do directly with end users.
Firstly, Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe and their devices can be bought everywhere.
Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google, notably the Amazon phones and tablets. They weren't that popular with consumers but that's not Google's fault: it just means consumers highly value the additional services Google provides.
Sorry if it was unclear. The first issue is Google pushing the search engine on mobile devices.
For context they also push Google search to iOS devices (Apple gets huge amount of money for that), the same way as they pay firefox to have Google as their default search engine.
The issue though, is that for android phones, it's not a "let's make a deal, we will pay you to have Google Search" attitude. You can't make an android device integrated with Google Play app store without also having Google Search in the home screen and as default search engine.
What the EU is fining among others, is the business practice of forcing device makers that want to use the Play Store to also bundle the other service (Search).
Which is a kind of silly decision on Google's part, because they have far and away the superior product and also the superior brand. Even if the option was given at setup, nearly everyone choosing to buy an Andriod phone would select google as the default search engine...
(I guess you could say that didn't see this coming, but the parallels with MSFT and IE are pretty hard to not see...)
The fine is going to hurt a lot more than any remedial action.
Much of their entire dominance as a company hinges on pushing defaults, and their ability to force manufacturers to ship Google apps, on any phone sold in the EU, is a massive blow. The penalty is chump change for Google, but the remedy is what is going to hurt long term, because competitors can finally get in the game.
Maybe the problem with the Google deal is that it's exclusive: if you want to make one device that's Google approved and contains the "highly valued" services, you are disallowed by the compliance contract to make other Android devices that are not Google-approved.
Yep, that is a big problem. If company A has launched an official Android device, and company B goes to A and asks them to build a totally unrelated Android-based (but not Android proper) device for them, A is not allowed to do that by Google.
But why would company B go to company A and ask them to make a phone "for them"?
It's not hard to become a phone maker these days, judging by the sheer number of Android OEMs that are out there (hundreds, I believe). If there was huge untapped demand for Android sans Google then a new company would appear, they'd download the Android code, they'd go to Shenzen and do a deal with a white label manufacturer, and they'd make such phones. Google wouldn't stop them because they'd be a company that doesn't make any other kinds of phones.
We know this is possible because there's one huge market where that's normal, China. Google's services are blocked in China anyway, so there's no point adding their app store or mapping apps. Local firms produce local versions of Android for their own market and it works fine. We also know this because Amazon tried it and they weren't sued or anything.
There are also open source spins of Android that have custom app stores like F-Droid. A new phone maker could ship those too.
You're missing the forest for the trees. The example was illustrative.
In general, when you see an example that explains a complex issue you should assume that it is significantly simplified and therefore will not be realistic.
First of all, Android is not only used on phones, but also for other types of embedded devices.
It's very normal that a company B would want to go to company A, if A already have a lot of expertise in Android. For instance a POS manufacturer might want to collaborate with Sony or Samsung on an embedded device which uses Android internally (without the GApps & stuff), but Sony and Samsung are forbidden from dealing with B.
Even Amazon would be happy to outsource some Android development to e.g. Samsung but they can't.
So Google could solve this problem by raising the price of its OS, increasing profits and decreasing market share, and leaving a billion with no access to smartphones at all.
Well, there's nothing all that special about the output of a political commission. And the fact that 1 in 5 devices don't run Android would seem to contradict the monopoly accusation.
Antitrust does not require a monopoly, it just requires enough of a market dominance that hurting the market is feasible for you, and then exploiting this position to actually hurt the market.
Basically, all you have to do, is hurt the market in noticeable ways. The sole goal of antitrust laws is keeping the market healthy. They're not fair and have almost no rules attached to them.
> Is the EU going to fine ARM next for having a monopoly on mobile CPUs?
Having a monopoly or being in a dominant position is not the problem. If ARM starts a pizza business and requires everyone who wants to buy mobile CPUs to also order pizzas exclusively from them, then this would be an equally-fineable abuse of a dominant market position and the EU would almost certainly step in.
As it stands, ARM doesn’t force others to buy pizzas exclusively from ARM PIZZA PLACE and hence doesn’t abuse its dominant market position in one market (mobile CPUs) to support its position in another market (pizzas).
Google, on the other hand, uses its dominant position in the "licensable mobile operating systems" market to support its position in the "internet search" and "browsers" market together with anticompetitive behaviour forcing its licensees to exclusively use the Google-approved version of Android.
You can use Android and make a phone that searches Bing and uses your own app store. Look at how Amazon did it.
Most phone makers don't because customers prefer the Google services, but that's not Google's fault. They have provided OEMs with options - options they didn't need to give anyone, apparently, given that non-licensable operating systems like iOS aren't being whacked the same way.
The most Google can do is give away their OS as open source and let people do what they want with it. If they then sell a bundle of extra proprietary stuff on top, stuff that customers want, that can't possibly be more problematic than making everything proprietary.
After all, Apple doesn't even let third party devs from the app store take over the default mapping app: map links always open in Apple Maps regardless of user preference. For the longest time they wouldn't even let apps that competed with their own be developed at all. On Android you can replace the dialer and even the home screen.
I do understand why people are defending the EU here: they like its ideology and vision of the future. But trying to claim Android is some sort of market abuse when Apple's own approach apparently isn't just defies basic logic.
I understand that you can look at this in a way that makes it seem like Apple's tight control over iOS is equivalent to Google's tight control over Android, but there are some key differences:
a) Android has market share dominances (likely around 75% in Europe in 2018)
b) iOS is not made available for other companies to use
You could make arguments that iOS behaves unfairly to third party developers and end users, and there are some decent arguments to be made there, but none of them are relevant to antitrust law because a) means there is no market dominance to abuse with, and b) means there are no competitors to be abused.
---
You said "Most phone makers don't [skip Google services] because customers prefer the Google services, but that's not Google's fault". I think this gets to the heart of the disconnect between your stated position, and the legal reality here (IANAL though).
If Google's services are supreme because of user choice, then Google should require no legal arm-twisting to push those services onto devices.
Instead, what has happened is that Google has over-reached with its Android services contracts (one example - if you want to use Google services on one Android phone, you can't make a second Android phone that uses your own services), and that is what the EU is tackling here.
You know that Samsung has their own app store, right? By your explanation that wouldn't be possible because they also ship the Google Play store. But it is. Samsung replace many other apps too. What Google requires is that their services are available, not that others aren't.
The different stories people are telling here about why Google is "abusive" don't correlate with the realities of how Android licensing actually works.
Also since when is 75% market dominance? 75% is popular but that's still a quarter of the population successfully choosing an alternative.
Samsung phones are very often dinged in reviews because they ship a confusing mix of Samsung apps that duplicate the functionality of Google apps. I wouldn't be very surprised at all if Samsung would prefer to just ship their Calendar/whatever app, or even entire phones that only contain their apps/services, but they can't make those choices.
Regarding the 75%, please bear in mind that that is across the total market, which covers a very broad range of price points. Apple may have ~25% share, but that is skewed almost entirely to the top end of the market. In the low end of the market, Android would be nearly 100%.
So what you saying "one example - if you want to use Google services on one Android phone, you can't make a second Android phone that uses your own services" is wrong then?
No, it's not wrong. Samsung is allowed to add its own Calendar/Calculator/whatever apps, and their own App Store, but they are not allowed to remove Google's ones without dropping every non-AOSP Google app/service from every one of their android phones.
- 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.
It's not that at all. It's abuse of dominance, not the dominance itself that's the problem.
They're using a dominant position in one market to push services in an unrelated market. That's anti-trust 101. And they punish suppliers who don't tow the line.
This is exactly the same as the MS anti-trust case. Swap IE for Google Web Services (Search/Maps/Chrome) and swap Android for Windows.
If ARM started forcing phone companies using their CPUs to only sell to AT&T, that's your analogy. As it is, because ARM don't force unrelated services or products on their customers, it's not analogous.
If they abuse their position e.g. by forcing device makers to sign contracts preventing them from using RISC-V etc., then yes, EU might get interested in that, too.
Maybe? Is there something about their business practices that shapes the market to their benefit? If so, and there are enough complaints then maybe not "next" but yeah.
As an independent phone maker, if this was their concern, they should have backed one of the other dozen or so attempts at a phone OS. No one forced them to choose Android.
They also have the option to write their own OS anytime they want.
It does have a dominant market position though, and that's what's in the legal stuff that they're being fined under. You do not need a complete monopoly to have a dominant market position.
> Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google, notably the Amazon phones and tablets. They weren't that popular with consumers but that's not Google's fault: it just means consumers highly value the additional services Google provides.
More than that though, they effectively stopped device manufactures from selling these (because of exclusivity agreements), and a lack of range isn't going to have helped amazon:
> For example, the Commission has found evidence that Google's conduct prevented a number of large manufacturers from developing and selling devices based on Amazon's Android fork called "Fire OS".
Apple doesn't license their OS to OEMs. I'd say them blocking alternative browser engines is controversial though. Also they dislike people using certain libraries, emulator technology, providing the ability to execute downloadable scripts (e.g. flash), etc.
Google is exactly in the same position as Microsoft when they were caught red handed doing shitty stuff with the vendors.
The interesting part is both Microsoft and Google prioritized licensing/delivering the OS and associated software, keeping a healthy distance from building hardware. Google tried a bit more with the Nexus/Pixel programs, but even then the target was only for small scale niche devices.
What I am driving at is that once android got traction, Google’s position went way up while vendor’s bargaining power went down, even as vendors where the ones taking the risks down the line. That kind of unbalance makes it easier to have abusive contracts and business practices.
It starts with good intentions (working symbiothically with the makers at innovative products) but things change, and with success I’d guess different kind of people also come into the organization to push more aggressive practices.
Apple has no monopoly on any hardware market where they are not the only one. They cannot dictate terms to any other OEM manufacturing A10-compatible computers.
> The European Commission has accused Google of abusing its Android market dominance by bundling its search engine and Chrome apps into the operating system. Google has also allegedly blocked phone makers from creating devices that run forked versions of Android.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17580694/google-android-e...
> How is it any different
Apple doesn’t have a dominent search engine to push down the throat of device makers.
They also don’t have an iOS consortium nor do work with other makers, so there is no bullying makers into doing what they want “or else”.
As others pointed out Apple is not in a majority position in the first place, but this fine is mainly bound to how the search engine and google suitr services come in the picture, and not on android on its own.