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

[gotluck]

But McDonald's would have to be forcing their consumers to eat the product a certain way for the analogy to really be applicable and only allow them to use certain approved utensils obtained through a sale (through only one available channel) which they get 30% cut.

And if you upgrade your food you can never go back

Can't use non software analogies for this software talk. We need a bill of rights for users.

This suit isn't about consumer choice at all, because android is leagues and leagues ahead there. I find it wierd that the Eu cares more about Oems that they don't have, when they are known for consumer protection

 

[Lloydbm41]

The reason Google is being singled out is because they are forcing oems to include google services.

To use an analogy, let's say there are only 2 main stream fast food joints, Burger King and McDonalds. Let's say Burger King is run as a franchise model, where Burger King corporate doesn't own or run any restaurants, but licenses the franchise and makes money by having franchise owners pay for food ingredients, the burger pattys, bread, fries, ect.

And now let's say McDonalds only has corporate owned restaurants, they own and run every single one and make their money by customers buying their food.

Now let's say one of the Burger King franchise owners decides they want to sell BBQ Ribs. The problem is Burger King Corp forbids them from selling ribs, because it would hurt burger sales and they wouldn't make money from them selling ribs.

And that is the problem. It doesn't matter if McDonalds wants to sell ribs or not, since they run the restaurant they can decide whatever they want to sell, but Burger King is forcing its franchise owners to only sell burgers because that's how they make their money and that's what makes it anti competitive.

Again, Google isn't forcing anyone to do anything. Every OEM has the option to either not use Android, use Android but fork it and provide your own services, or use Android and pay licensing fees for Google's apps. All 3 options have been utilized by various OEM's. Samsung and HTC have created phones that don't run Android. One+ and Amazon have forked Android.
If the competition wasn't out there and didn't exist, I would say Google is stiffling competition. But the very fact that there are multiple companies producing various options proves this is not the case.

 

[Michael Goff]

Again, Google isn't forcing anyone to do anything. Every OEM has the option to either not use Android, use Android but fork it and provide your own services, or use Android and pay licensing fees for Google's apps. All 3 options have been utilized by various OEM's. Samsung and HTC have created phones that don't run Android. One+ and Amazon have forked Android.
If the competition wasn't out there and didn't exist, I would say Google is stiffling competition. But the very fact that there are multiple companies producing various options proves this is not the case.

If you want to have a version with Google services, that's the only version you can run. Also, you have to take all of them.

 

[gotluck]

The freedom fighter in me wants google to call the eu's bluff. Say fine, we are pulling an apple, nexus only for you and by the way we are taking away the ability to use amazon app store, f- droid, and the ability to sideload apps and set default apps, along with weakening third party service integration with the system and making them use inferior api compared to first party services. And we're locking the bootloader too and preventing the ability to downgrade the OS. Find some pretense to sue us that can be applied to our main competitors too.

Then they can be hailed as helping stop the precedent of dictator style computing by groups/people that actually care about consumer protection!

 

[MRU]

The reality is simple. If OEM'S are so happy with the current situation regarding their licensing agreements with Google, how come not a single one has come to the defense of Google in this ... It will be interesting to see if Samsung or LG or others (after all there are hundreds of Android OEMs) will step forward.

 

[kdarling]

The EU is also investigating Apple over its tax avoidance, and wants them to pay years of back taxes.

It seems to me that when the EU Commission latches onto something, it's often about something that will result in money or fines that will aid a member state or the EU Commission itself.

 

[gotluck]

If you want to have a version with Google services, that's the only version you can run. Also, you have to take all of them.

Isn't the same true for any Microsoft oem? They don't even have the option of no Microsoft services w/ windows. It is even more restrictive

Would it really be better if stock Android w/ google services was the only thing that existed and Oems could use that or nothing? (I actually do think that would be better in many ways )

 

[Michael Goff]

Isn't the same true for any Microsoft oem? They don't even have the option of no Microsoft services w/ windows. It is even more restrictive

Big difference is that Android without Google services exists and Windows without Microsoft services does not. Seriously, though, you really seem defensive of any actions against Google. Do you work for them or something?

 

[gotluck]

Big difference is that Android without Google services exists and Windows without Microsoft services does not. Seriously, though, you really seem defensive of any actions against Google. Do you work for them or something?

No I don't and I want google to get knocked around for sure. I don't even use android as a daily driver. They are definitely screwed up in many ways, but I view them much like Microsoft, they still let you do what you want, even wipe the OS from your hardware.

I really want apple knocked around more though, if computers are all locked down like ios one day in the future I will be very sad. I think it is a horrible precedent and a slippery slope. This is my most passionate topic regarding tech (the stripping of rights from the end user that is) as you can see from my replies

 

[Fernandez21]

But McDonald's would have to be forcing their consumers to eat the product a certain way for the analogy to really be applicable and only allow them to use certain approved utensils obtained through a sale (through only one available channel) which they get 30% cut.

And if you upgrade your food you can never go back

Can't use non software analogies for this software talk. We need a bill of rights for users.

This suit isn't about consumer choice at all, because android is leagues and leagues ahead there. I find it wierd that the Eu cares more about Oems that they don't have, when they are known for consumer protection

Well, to take the analogy further, it would be like McDonald only serving their burgers with ketchup and charging extra for utensils, while Burger King let's the franchise owners decide the condiments. And your arguing about bringing your own condiments..... Yeah this is where it gets tricky.

It's a fine line, because as a business owner you don't want others dictating what you sell. And as far is Google, their services is what makes them money, so understandably they want those included with android. The problem with this type of regulation is that if they force Google to decouple google services from android, then what incentive does google have to continue development? What would probably happen is android stalls while Google puts all its resources into its apps, Google Search, Maps, YouTube, ect.

But you need to regulate to try to spur innovation. Look at Microsoft. Imagine if they were allowed to continue to monopolize the market. What if they decided, long ago, that if a developer wants to make Windows programs, they can only make Windows programs and windows mobile programs. And what if they made internet explorer incompatible with other web browsers, so if say when Hulu or Netflix opened their sites, they had to spend their resources to make it compatible with internet explorer and couldn't afford to make it compatible with anything else? Things would be far worse IMO.

The one that would give you your desired effect would probably be apple, they make their money from selling hardware, so even if you cripple their ability to force a user into their services they would still continue developing it to sell their hardware.

 

[Lloydbm41]

If you want to have a version with Google services, that's the only version you can run. Also, you have to take all of them.

As an OEM, this is true (but not all Google Apps are added. Just the core apps). However, and this is key, the user then has the ability to remove all those apps or even manipulate the entire OS if they wish. The crux of the argument is about "consumer protection", not hardware OEM protection.

 

[gotluck]

Well, to take the analogy further, it would be like McDonald only serving their burgers with ketchup and charging extra for utensils, while Burger King let's the franchise owners decide the condiments. And your arguing about bringing your own condiments..... Yeah this is where it gets tricky.

It's a fine line, because as a business owner you don't want others dictating what you sell. And as far is Google, their services is what makes them money, so understandably they want those included with android. The problem with this type of regulation is that if they force Google to decouple google services from android, then what incentive does google have to continue development? What would probably happen is android stalls while Google puts all its resources into its apps, Google Search, Maps, YouTube, ect.

But you need to regulate to try to spur innovation. Look at Microsoft. Imagine if they were allowed to continue to monopolize the market. What if they decided, long ago, that if a developer wants to make Windows programs, they can only make Windows programs and windows mobile programs. And what if they made internet explorer incompatible with other web browsers, so if say when Hulu or Netflix opened their sites, they had to spend their resources to make it compatible with internet explorer and couldn't afford to make it compatible with anything else? Things would be far worse IMO.

The one that would give you your desired effect would probably be apple, they make their money from selling hardware, so even if you cripple their ability to force a user into their services they would still continue developing it to sell their hardware.

Couldn't google fuse android and Google services and sell them a license exactly like Microsoft does with Windows?

I just want to be clear again that I do want google prosecuted. Apples practices with ios just bother me more/have more ramifications for end users and they seem untouchable.

 

[Fernandez21]

As an OEM, this is true (but not all Google Apps are added. Just the core apps). However, and this is key, the user then has the ability to remove all those apps or even manipulate the entire OS if they wish. The crux of the argument is about "consumer protection", not hardware OEM protection.

The crux, as I understand it, is Google dictating to OEMs what they can sell, and in turn protecting consumers from a single corporation dictating what is available in the market.

 

[Fernandez21]

Couldn't google fuse android and Google services and sell them a license exactly like Microsoft does with Windows?

I just want to be clear again that I do want google prosecuted. Apples practices with ios just bother me more/have more ramifications for end users and they seem untouchable.

Maybe, not sure how that works and if that would get past regulations.

Isn't that what got Microsoft in trouble when they did that with IE?

 

[gotluck]

Maybe, not sure how that works and if that would get past regulations.

Isn't that what got Microsoft in trouble when they did that with IE?

I guess they could have a version that doesn't have whatever app the Eu seems to have a problem with. I guess mainly search?

I've never seen the European version of Windows without ie so I'm not exactly sure if other services like one drive and such are missing

 

[Michael Goff]

No I don't and I want google to get knocked around for sure. I don't even use android as a daily driver. They are definitely screwed up in many ways, but I view them much like Microsoft, they still let you do what you want, even wipe the OS from your hardware.

I really want apple knocked around more though, if computers are all locked down like ios one day in the future I will be very sad. I think it is a horrible precedent and a slippery slope. This is my most passionate topic regarding tech (the stripping of rights from the end user that is) as you can see from my replies

Legally, the two cases of Google and Microsoft are different. If Google had baked GPS into Android, instead of making them something that's just installed into it, it'd be completely different. But Google decided to do just that, maybe for their own reasons. My main problem with the agreement is that more companies might throw something like Cyanogen on there but can't test the waters if they want a phone that will actually sell.

As an OEM, this is true (but not all Google Apps are added. Just the core apps). However, and this is key, the user then has the ability to remove all those apps or even manipulate the entire OS if they wish. The crux of the argument is about "consumer protection", not hardware OEM protection.

Except the EU case is mainly about OEM protection and not customer protection. That's how EU laws are tailored.

 

[gotluck]

Legally, the two cases of Google and Microsoft are different. If Google had baked GPS into Android, instead of making them something that's just installed into it, it'd be completely different. But Google decided to do just that, maybe for their own reasons. My main problem with the agreement is that more companies might throw something like Cyanogen on there but can't test the waters if they want a phone that will actually sell.



Except the EU case is mainly about OEM protection and not customer protection. That's how EU laws are tailored.

In a way google is being punished for open sourcing android, or was it keeping android open source? Not sure. If they kept it closed source and bundled GPS with Android and sold it there would be no problem, but at the same time it probably wouldn't have spread as fast at it did with the oem alterations/ open source + GPS license model. That is wierd for me. I would rather reward open source, but Google is indeed abusing it's position by tightening their grip after the fact

As a user I am okay with them tightening their grip because the situation with updates sucks so much that Oems basically don't exist to me anyway and they give so many freedoms to the user

 

[Michael Goff]

In a way google is being punished for open sourcing android, or was it keeping android open source? Not sure. If they kept it closed source and bundled GPS with Android and sold it there would be no problem, but at the same time it probably wouldn't have spread as fast at it did with the oem alterations/ open source + GPS license model. That is wierd for me. I would rather reward open source, but Google is indeed abusing it's position by tightening their grip after the fact

Actually, they're being punished for open source and then trying to take control of it through any means necessary. Whether it's not patching AOSP completely, some fixes rely on GPS, or the non fragmentation agreement? Both are ways of trying to control open source. They get points for trying, though.

 

[mi7chy]

Perhaps the EU is trying to protect companies because they're clearly not protecting consumers. If Apple and Google made cars EU would be after Google to have conveniences like replaceable car seats, AC, etc. removed while letting Apple get away with locked down equivalents that you have to go through Apple to replace.

I know as a consumer it was a PITA to side load Google Apps onto an Amazon Fire tablet so I'm not locked down to Amazon ecosystem. In contrast, a device with Google Apps already on it from the factory can install Amazon store app without issue. This fairytale EU issue with Google would be a blessing if it were true. It would also make my iPads more useful if Google Store came preinstalled or is user installable.

 

[Michael Goff]

Perhaps the EU is trying to protect companies because they're clearly not protecting consumers. If Apple and Google made cars EU would be after Google to have conveniences like replaceable car seats, AC, etc. removed while letting Apple get away with locked down equivalents that you have to go through Apple to replace.

I know as a consumer it was a PITA to side load Google Apps onto an Amazon Fire tablet so I'm not locked down to Amazon ecosystem. In contrast, a device with Google Apps already on it from the factory can install Amazon store app without issue. This fairytale EU issue with Google would be a blessing if it were true. It would also make my iPads more useful if Google Store came preinstalled or is user installable.

Competition at all costs seems to be the EU way.

 

[macfacts]

Perhaps the EU is trying to protect companies because they're clearly not protecting consumers...

Except what EU companies make Android phones?

 

[Michael Goff]

Except what EU companies make Android phones?

I think this is about protecting OEMs, but not out of nationalism or protectionism. I simply think EU laws favor competition and they believe the sorts of things happening here go against that spirit. Remember the Microsoft/Media Player thing for a good example.

 

[gotluck]

But apparently competition only matters if the product has majority market share. Profit and revenue share seem to be irrelevant. And if you don't use an oem structure to make products you are immune as well.

Bah this subject pisses me off so much, I will stop.

 

[Lloydbm41]

Legally, the two cases of Google and Microsoft are different. If Google had baked GPS into Android, instead of making them something that's just installed into it, it'd be completely different. But Google decided to do just that, maybe for their own reasons. My main problem with the agreement is that more companies might throw something like Cyanogen on there but can't test the waters if they want a phone that will actually sell.



Except the EU case is mainly about OEM protection and not customer protection. That's how EU laws are tailored.

Please explain this remark then?

From thge Wall Street Journal:
Technology executives and lobbyists on Wednesday argued that intervention in cases like Google’s could do more harm than good. Some argued that the charges effectively penalize Google for allowing others to use its operating system, even if there are conditions. Apple Inc., by contrast, is the only maker of devices using its iOS operating system.

“The danger is that you do something which just helps some players in the market and doesn’t help consumers,” said James Waterworth,Brussels-based vice president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, a lobby group for tech firms including Google. “Some people don’t like having to compete with Google. So they would like the commission’s help.”

European Antitrust Commissioner Margrethe Vestager dismissed those objections.

“It is not our job to defend companies. It is our job to protect competition,” she said. “If dominance is abused, then we have an issue.”

Link: http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-files-formal-charges-against-google-over-android-conduct-1461145354

 

[MRU]

Please explain this remark then?

Some argued that the charges effectively penalize Google for allowing others to use its operating system, even if there are conditions. Apple Inc., by contrast, is the only maker of devices using its iOS operating system.

Just because it's from the Wall Street Journal does'nt mean the opinions they garnered to form that sentance fully understood what the EU are actually trying to do.

The crux of their argument is that GOOGLE is currently penalizing OEM's by making its license agreement with them based on FORCED requirements of Google services and certain apps. An OEM can not choose to NOT put certain google apps on their devices.


You can see how this has affected recent devices who tried to cut down on the rampant duplication of apps and services that plagues most android handsets fresh out of the box last few years.

Samsung ended up ditching its own music player - kept google play music. They couldn't with the licence as it currently stands have dumped google play music and just kept Music Player, they would have HAD to include both.

HTC with their 10 have likewise (despite receiving plaudits for actually doing so) had to dump their own apps to get rid of duplication on the 10. Otherwise if they decided to keep their own apps instead they would have then been FORCED by its licence agreement to still have had to include the google ones.


As much as people say this is about choice, can folks not see if that trend persists - essentially the apps that come on any android handset will be all stock google apps and everyones handsets will fundementally be much the same, which does despite protestations here; kill competition.


Apple are different. They force the end consumer to decide if they want to use an apple phone with apple's services. That's the end consumers choice. You buy or you dont. Its just one phone, one manufacturer. They don't account for 75-80% of the smartphone market OS or licence the OS to other OEMs



The end consumer in a case like android; if the trend to force homogonise the OS continues; means that that consumer regardless of which android device from any of which oem they purchase, doesnt get to choose, Google has alreasy forced the decision at the licence agreement stages with the OEMs.

With Android forming the basis of the vast majority of the smartphone handsets sold, its an issue. That's the crux of the EU argumemt.




Now some have argued here that it does'nt matter what default apps are pre-installed on your android device because you can change many defaults. But that again is missing the point.

The EU argument is not based on what a user does afterwards with their device, but on what the device is shipped with or to be more specific 'FORCED' to ship with to retail.

We can see that google is trying to homogonise android. Which Google sees as offering a more coherent android experience to the end consumer. However forcing android oems to dump their own apps or services if they want to cut down on duplication rather than Google's own, is where the problem lies in the current matter.

Now imagine a couple more years down the line and Google's FORCED homoginsation (via licence agreement) continues. If LG, HTC, SAMSUNG and others are all offering the same pre-installed software with only minor differences here and there; this does kill competition and user choice. Which do you end up choosing? (Does it matter if they are all essentially the same inside).

Regardless of what you can change after the event, it is what your device (and the majority of devices marketshare wise) are FORCED to ship with that this ruling seeks to deal with.