Mobile OSs Google faces EU charge over Android 'abuse of dominance'

[lowendlinux]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36092441

Speaking at a press conference in Brussels on Wednesday, the European competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, said she had reached a preliminary view that Google was in breach of EU law.

It has been given 12 weeks to respond, and, if found guilty, the company faces a fine and could be required to change its practices.

Ms Vestager said Google had harmed both competitors and consumers by placing requirements on mobile manufacturers and operators to preinstall some of its own products and, in some cases, set them as default or exclusive options on handsets.

In some cases, she said, this had been as a condition of Google's agreement to grant a licence for the use of some of its apps.

Android is open-source software, meaning competing operating systems can be built using its source code.

The commissioner alleged Google had barred manufacturers from selling devices using these operating systems.

She also said Google had given financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition they exclusively preinstalled Google Search on their devices.

Go get them EU!! How about a couple billion in fines and the immediate ceasing of any anti-competitive practices.

 

[Klyster]

Just leave the EU Google, let them enjoy the choice of Apple and Microsoft. How dare Google want their search engine in their products....Sheesh!
What's happening to Europe?

 

[JaySoul]

I can see both sides of the argument to be fair.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Just leave the EU Google, let them enjoy the choice of Apple and Microsoft. How dare Google want their search engine in their products....Sheesh!
What's happening to Europe?

That is a bit selfish to those of us within the EU that enjoy using Googles services.

It is also a huge market that Google would not want to lose.

 

[Klyster]

Yeah I realise that, and I don't really want you to suffer, I'm just ranting

The EU might notice if Google said "right then, see ya, bye..."

It'll never happen cos they could pay a 2B fine and still be making money but I'd love it if they did, don't like our products and terms, find something else...good luck.

What are Google doing that is so wrong, really?
Why is the rest of the world not following suite and yelling foul too?
Who stands to gain from this? The people? I'd guess he majority wouldn't notice whatever happens....

 

[lowendlinux]

Yeah I realise that, and I don't really want you to suffer, I'm just ranting

The EU might notice if Google said "right then, see ya, bye..."

It'll never happen cos they could pay a 2B fine and still be making money but I'd love it if they did, don't like our products and terms, find something else...good luck.

What are Google doing that is so wrong, really?
Why is the rest of the world not following suite and yelling foul too?
Who stands to gain from this? The people? I'd guess he majority wouldn't notice whatever happens....

It prevents manufacturers from shipping phones or tablets without GMS that's the inherent problem. If I want ship a lower dollar handset with say AOSP and fdroid they can and will prevent me from shipping my upmarket phones with GMS. AOSP is an Apache and GPL2 licensed OS and they should not be able to control whether on OEM ships AOSP or full Android.

Google can KMA and leave Europe maybe if they do we'll actually have a vibrant world wide mobile market. Tizen, Sailfish, Ubuntu, Android, WinMo and iOS all healthy and competing sounds way better than Android v iOS.

 

[gotluck]

I wish they would go after apple too and make them allow better integration of third party services to replace iCloud! Default applications too

Haven't read enough about Google v Eu to really have an opinion though

 

[MRU]

I wish they would go after apple too and make them allow better integration of third party services to replace iCloud! Default applications too

You maybe missing the point of why this is an EU issue however. It's simply because Google allow other manufacturers to licence Android OS. Part of that licence is the insistence of certain google services to be mandatory.

The EU has decided that this is mandatory implementation of certain google apps within the licence is unfair. That if it's going to licence its OS - it should not force certain apps and services on OEM's and they should be able to choose whether they want to implement them or not. It's being uncompetitive to the OEM's.

Apple does not licence IOS and therefore doesn't fall under the same remit. It's only being uncompetitive with itself ....
[doublepost=1461244610][/doublepost]

Just leave the EU Google, let them enjoy the choice of Apple and Microsoft. How dare Google want their search engine in their products....Sheesh!
What's happening to Europe?

Again your missing the point. There is no reason why an OEM couldn't use Google as it's search engine and include all the google services if it 'opted to'. However currently it doesn't 'opt' it is 'told' to do so. The EU just see that distinction as uncompetitive to those OEM's. They should in it's eyes be allowed to choose what services they want to put on their version of the OS.

The reality is with a bit of tweaking to the licence, at this stage its very unlikely that ANY oem would suddenly stop using googles services or embedding them deeply into Android OS as those services cost HUGE amounts of money to set up and implement. If google choose to make the installation of its services optional - the reality is in all likelihood all the OEMs would still use them regardless.

 

[gotluck]

You maybe missing the point of why this is an EU issue however. It's simply because Google allow other manufacturers to licence Android OS. Part of that licence is the insistence of certain google services to be mandatory.

The EU has decided that this is mandatory implementation of certain google apps within the licence is unfair. That if it's going to licence its OS - it should not force certain apps and services on OEM's and they should be able to choose whether they want to implement them or not. It's being uncompetitive to the OEM's.

Apple does not licence IOS and therefore doesn't fall under the same remit. It's only being uncompetitive with itself ....

Fair enough indeed I can see that

I'm not sure I understand the difference between apple and the forced decoupling of IE from Windows though.

I have a problem with the inability to downgrade ios devices too, that's really only prevalent in gaming systems.

 

[MRU]

Fair enough indeed I can see that

I'm not sure I understand the difference between apple and the forced decoupling of IE from Windows though.

I have a problem with the inability to downgrade ios devices too, that's really only prevalent in gaming systems.

Same issue. Microsoft Windows OS is licensed to third party OEM's - therefore forcing them to use it is seen as uncompetitive.

Apple once again doesn't licence it's OS to anyone else, its tied to its own hardware. Therefore it doesn't fall under the same remit.

 

[gotluck]

Same issue. Microsoft Windows OS is licensed to third party OEM's - therefore forcing them to use it is seen as uncompetitive.

Apple once again doesn't licence it's OS to anyone else. Therefore it doesn't fall under the same remit.

Ugh that is very frustrating from a consumer perspective. Apple just gets to say, fine don't buy it. Not fair IMO

If it is really about consumer protection apple is just skating around the issue and given a free pass. Sounds like it is about protecting Oems. I didn't realize that was the intention.

 

[MRU]

Ugh that is very frustrating from a consumer perspective. Apple just gets to say, fine don't buy it. Not fair IMO

If it is really about consumer protection apple is just skating around the issue and given a free pass. Sounds like it is about protecting Oems. I didn't realize that was the intention.

As with everything with the EU - the 'initial' intention often gets lost in translation and it becomes more of an exercise in bureaucracy and red tape than anything else.

 

[John Mcgregor]

I can see both sides of the argument to be fair.

To be fair? There is only one side.
[doublepost=1461249307][/doublepost]

Ugh that is very frustrating from a consumer perspective. Apple just gets to say, fine don't buy it. Not fair IMO

If it is really about consumer protection apple is just skating around the issue and given a free pass. Sounds like it is about protecting Oems. I didn't realize that was the intention.

Do you even THINK before saying?

 

[mi7chy]

Wonder if the EU is being idiotic or they have some ulterior motive. When I buy a Samsung Android device I get two different browsers and searches which I can replace with a different default or disable. When I buy an iOS device I'm locked into using the Apple app and have no way to change the default or disable.

 

[gotluck]

Ios is on another level when it comes to stripping user rights away indeed. No other mainstream, consumer os comes close. Only gaming consoles.

 

[MRU]

Ios is on another level when it comes to stripping user rights away indeed. No other mainstream, consumer os comes close. Only gaming consoles.

But once again that's not the issue. Apple does not license any of its software for other OEM's to utilise - therefore it does not force third parties OEM's to utilise their software in its licence agreement.

This is ruling is really more based on third party OEM's rather than actual end users. They claim end user protection - but it isn't really - it's more the path to end user they are querying.

Whilst apple services are needed for things like app store downloads, when you set up your iPhone you choose to agree to those terms and conditions or not.

Whereas with an Android device, Google has terms and conditions with the OEM's that they have to implement software and services, which means they have bypassed the consumer choosing to agree to them or not.

The difference is subtle, but its that subtle difference is the whole crux of the issue. It's nothing to do with ulterior motives or such, its just EU bureaucracy in full flight. Whether it makes sense to you is by the by - it is what it is, and the EU want to make Google remove its enforcement of its apps & services in it's licence agreement with third party OEM's.

 

[gotluck]

But once again that's not the issue. Apple does not license any of its software for other OEM's to utilise - therefore it does not force third parties OEM's to utilise their software in its licence agreement.

This is ruling is really more based on third party OEM's rather than actual end users. They claim end user protection - but it isn't really - it's more the path to end user they are querying.

Whilst apple services are needed for things like app store downloads, when you set up your iPhone you choose to agree to those terms and conditions or not.

Whereas with an Android device, Google has terms and conditions with the OEM's that they have to implement software and services, which means they have bypassed the consumer choosing to agree to them or not.

The difference is subtle, but its that subtle difference is the whole crux of the issue. It's nothing to do with ulterior motives or such, its just EU bureaucracy in full flight. Whether it makes sense to you is by the by - it is what it is, and the EU want to make Google remove its enforcement of its apps & services in it's licence agreement with third party OEM's.

why was microsoft forced to offer a retail version of windows without IE then? In that situation there is no OEM involved, just the end user.. like the apple T&C (that you have to accept in order to use the device if I'm not mistaken)

Does the EU even have any android OEMs to protect? They shouldnt even mention consumer protection in this suit at all IMO, it has nothing to do with the consumer. The consumer has much more choice and competing services (with an equal amount of integration with the system) on android

 

[MRU]

why was microsoft forced to offer a retail version of windows without IE then? In that situation there is no OEM involved, just the end user.. like the apple T&C (that you have to accept in order to use the device if I'm not mistaken)

You're mistaken. Remember microsoft's OS is supplied on multiple OEM laptops and desktops when a customer buys a laptop or desktop from any OEM.

Microsoft are supplying it's OS to multiple OEM's. The retail version was hit with the same restrictions because there were multiple manufacturer based PC's and home built PC's.

Likewise you have to remember the context of when this restriction was first enforced. It was back in a time when Microsoft was penalising third parties and charging oems more to volume licence if they changed Microsoft's default tools/software.

Apple controls hardware & software - the two are intrinsically tied.

 

[gotluck]

You're mistaken. Remember microsoft's OS is supplied on multiple OEM laptops and desktops when a customer buys a laptop or desktop from any OEM.

Microsoft are supplying it's OS to multiple OEM's. The retail version was hit with the same restrictions because there were multiple manufacturer based PC's and home built PC's.

Apple controls hardware & software - the two are intrinsically tied.

sounds like semantics and double standards to me, or a loophole

I'm still not understanding why the retail version was hit with the same restrictions, those vendors could have used OEM licenses. Anyone who bought windows outright was forced into it in the same manner apple does it

 

[MRU]

sounds like semantics and double standards to me, or a loophole

I'm still not understanding why the retail version was hit with the same restrictions, those vendors could have used OEM licenses

A lot of the diffrences do boil down to slight semantics and wording that change the context subtly.

 

[gotluck]

A lot of the diffrences do boil down to slight semantics and wording that change the context subtly.

meh I cant wait for android to fix its update structure, then I will be rid of these chains forever.. good riddance

 

[lowendlinux]

why was microsoft forced to offer a retail version of windows without IE then? In that situation there is no OEM involved, just the end user.. like the apple T&C (that you have to accept in order to use the device if I'm not mistaken)

Does the EU even have any android OEMs to protect? They shouldnt even mention consumer protection in this suit at all IMO, it has nothing to do with the consumer. The consumer has much more choice and competing services (with an equal amount of integration with the system) on android

The MS case was different and they ended up having to open their API's..

The thing here is Google is forcing OEM's to include GMS whether they like it or not which includes the PlayStore, Chrome, and YouTube which they monetize and they can't pick and choose.

Google purchased Android Apached it to reduce development costs then forced OEM to attach proprietary GMS on top of it. In essence Google violates the spirit of open source and removes the flexibility of open source to OEMs. Google can go pound sand or take a long walk off a short pier "don't be evil" *shakes head*

 

[gotluck]

The MS case was different and they ended up having to open their API's..

The thing here is Google is forcing OEM's to include GMS whether they like it or not which includes the PlayStore, Chrome, and YouTube which they monetize and they can't pick and choose.

Google purchased Android Apached it to reduce development costs then forced OEM to attach proprietary GMS on top of it. In essence Google violates the spirit of open source and removes the flexibility of open source to OEMs. Google can go pound sand or take a long walk off a short pier "don't be evil" *shakes head*

I understand and agree that google is abusing its position

I just also think apple is abusing its position as well, worse in some cases.

 

[lowendlinux]

I understand and agree that google is abusing its position

I just also think apple is abusing its position as well, worse in some cases.

I wish Apple would do a lot of things to include allowing users to use something other than the iTunes store but they don't license iOS so there is no way to force the issue. Apple in Europe isn't as popular as Android because we don't historically have subsidized phones so people tend to buy and either get a SIM contract or prepay. After living here for 12 years i'm in that habit so when I go back to the states I'll just get a Ting SIM and move on.

 

[gotluck]

I wish Apple would do a lot of things to include allowing users to use something other than the iTunes store but they don't license iOS so there is no way to force the issue. Apple in Europe isn't as popular as Android because we don't historically have subsidized phones so people tend to buy and either get a SIM contract or prepay. After living here for 12 years i'm in that habit so when I go back to the states I'll just get a Ting SIM and move on.

are they not licencing iOS to the user? I mean its user choice that is being infringed WRT ios anyway. This twisted software legalese..

you'll have to forgive me I have trained myself to click accept and disregard