
Google to Charge Phone Makers for Android Apps in Europe - ucaetano
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/technology/google-android-europe-apps.html
======
hadrien01
> Google said it would sell a license for a package including its Google Play
> app store, Gmail, YouTube and Maps. Another license will be available for
> companies wanting to pre-install Google Search and the Chrome browser,
> allowing handset makers to partner with rival services.

Still not decoupled enough for my taste. Manufacturers should be able to get
only the Google Play store.

They also don't say anything about decoupling and shrinking the hundreds of
megabytes of mandatory Google Play services constantly tracking you. (for
example: will you still be mandated to make all Location Services go through
Google if you want Google Play on your phone?)

~~~
beaner
> Manufacturers should be able to get only the Google Play store.

Why? Google is a for-profit company that puts time and effort into developing
the store. The play store may not actually be self-sustaining in terms of
revenue. Perhaps it is paid for by things like Maps and YouTube.

Shouldn't Google be able to specify the terms of use for its closed-source
products? It seems sane that those terms might specify a package deal with
other products.

By mandating that companies should be able to only get the Play Store, you're
asking that Google work for free for others, and that doesn't seem fair.

~~~
s3r3nity
> Perhaps it is paid for by things like Maps and YouTube.

This is why monopoly rules exist, and why it's not quite so simple. Leveraging
strong market position in one market, say search/advertising, to undercut
prices in a completely different market is clear-cut anti-competitive
behavior.

My retort to your argument would be: why even do hardware / Android at all?
Because it's a distribution mechanism for _their_ services. If you leverage
market dominance to expand that distribution network with fewer / no
alternatives for consumers, that's like anti-trust 101.

~~~
fixermark
> Leveraging strong market position in one market, say search/advertising, to
> undercut prices in a completely different market is clear-cut anti-
> competitive behavior.

Is it less clear how monopoly rules work if the price is "free?" If a company
can offer a service for free by supplementing the cost with bundling (in a
market where the going rate is "free") vs. not offering it at all, I'm not
sure that's considered the same by US monopoly law (I have no idea of EU
monopoly law).

~~~
s3r3nity
It's a reasonable question - but the price can never be truly "free," because
there's a cost to investment / build that product - meaning costs are non-
zero. Therefore the negative profit in the short-term due to pricing is called
"undercutting," as other companies (generally) don't have that luxury in the
long run.

You have to ask: why is it free?

\- A thousand engineers working on a non-revenue product for Google is like
"pennies," when it might be a whole company anywhere else.

\- How are you funding that negative profit? Using leverage and profit from
strong market position elsewhere. Therefore: anti-competitive, as other
companies in the space don't have similar leverage.

Now, a startup can, say, operate at negative profit and not count as "anti-
competitive," because a startup most likely has fractional market share. But
imagine you're building a startup in a brand new space, and Google decides to
also enter that space. If you price your product at $10, and Google says
"we're pricing at $0," you can imagine how no one could compete with that for
the long-term. Hence why monopoly / anti-competitive rules are important.

~~~
fixermark
If we're talking app stores, I think it's free because no consumer would pay
for it. F-Droid is also free.

~~~
shock
I don't think this argument holds generally. For example people used to pay
for GPS apps (iGO, TomTom, etc.) before Google Maps/other navi apps were
available for "free" on smartphones. Google, in fact, might have destroyed a
market by making Google Maps "free".

~~~
orangecat
_Google, in fact, might have destroyed a market by making Google Maps "free"._

Which is a good thing if it results in more people getting quality services.
gcc and Apache destroyed the market for commercial compilers and web servers;
should they have been prohibited?

~~~
themihai
>> gcc and Apache destroyed the market for commercial compilers and web
servers; should they have been prohibited?

The difference here is that Apache didn't shove you a PlayStore, maps app and
a browser in order to use their libraries. I want the products to "win" on
merit not on reach. You also forget that Apache is open source which is not
the case with Maps/youtube where your access can be denied at any time.

>> Which is a good thing if it results in more people getting quality
services.

This gives no guarantee that Google won't start to charge its users for these
services at some point in time. And there really won't be any competition as
all the competitors have been killed by the "free" price.

Actually it seems they already set the price. You may argue that the end user
doesn't pay for Playstore etc but we both know they pay...just like they paid
for Windows. "Google said it would sell a license for a package including its
Google Play...."

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> The difference here is that Apache didn't shove you a PlayStore, maps app
> and a browser in order to use their libraries.

That's a completely independent complaint that has nothing to do with Android
being available for free. You would have the same tying objection if Android
cost money, right?

------
gimmeThaBeet
This has always felt very bizarre to me. From an anti-competitive standpoint
it makes sense, but from an antitrust i.e. harming the consumer standpoint, it
feels a bit nebulous.

Who is actually the beneficiary of this action? It seems pretty dubious that
it helps customers, after all, the whole thing stems from the fact that the
customers want the Play Store.

It says that they would offer would be financial incentives for partnering
with chrome and google. Is it just gonna be like "access to Google Play is
$10, but if you bundle our services, we'll give you $10!"

Or is the effect that it increases the leverage of other handset makers to
essentially extract rents of digital real estate from Google like Apple does?

~~~
JacobDotVI
from: [https://stratechery.com/2017/ends-means-and-
antitrust/](https://stratechery.com/2017/ends-means-and-antitrust/)

"What is the Standard for Determining Illegal Behavior?

"The United States and European Union have, at least since the Reagan
Administration, differed on this point: the U.S. is primarily concerned with
consumer welfare, and the primary proxy is price. In other words, as long as
prices do not increase — or even better, decrease — there is, by definition,
no illegal behavior.

"The European Commission, on the other hand, is explicitly focused on
competition: monopolistic behavior is presumed to be illegal if it restricts
competitors which, in the theoretical long run, hurts consumers by restricting
innovation."

~~~
ryanobjc
The only problem with allowing competitors to constrain their business rivals
is, well, exactly that. They are unable to compete in the marketplace, thus
they rely on regulation.

I always had a hard time with that notion. It feels too ripe for abuse to me.

~~~
akoncius
It’s not as simple as you are implying. Multiple times Intel made deals with
PC vendors just to deny AMD access to computers. It is anticompetitive and in
the ling run it damages consumers by limiting competition and innovation. Good
thing that AMD wasn’t killed during those moves and now we see rise of AMD. I
would not be surprised that AMD was able to catch up just because of same
regulations - Intel was punished for anticompetitive actions and now playing
field is more or less level.

Google is dumping prices for all products and by that it kills competition
unfairly - google maps as a standalone product would not survive because it
does not generate ad revenues and it’s free to use. Gmail was also
unsustainable for really long time because it was free and without ads. So
it’s not as simple as you are saying.

------
ce4
Google has used their position to strongarm manufacturers before. Skyhook Wifi
Geolocation services was for a short time default on Moto/Samsung. Fearing
loss of valuable essid wifi/cell tower scanning data collection, google forced
Skyhook out. That was when wifi geolocation was still in its infancy on
Android.

[https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-
skyhook-l...](https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-
lawsuit-motorola-samsung)

Edit: some corrections

~~~
GeekyBear
Also, Google used their position to keep Android forks from gaining a
competitive foothold in the marketplace.

>Google allegedly ran afoul of EU rules by deterring manufacturers from using
Android forks. Google "has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install
Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on
alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google," the
commission said.

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/eu-google-
illega...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/eu-google-illegally-
used-android-to-dominate-search-must-pay-5b-fine/)

~~~
zmmmmm
As far as I can tell that was a lie. Google allows OEMs to sell devices
running "alternative Android versions", but it insists those versions must be
fully Android compatible. It prohibits incompatible forks, which to me seems
like an extremely good thing which they have relatively few ways of enforcing
given the open source nature of Android.

~~~
bubblethink
You are missing the distinction between AOSP's license and google play
services' license. You can do as you wish with AOSP. If you want google play
services (which all OEMs do), a whole new set of things kick in.

------
jackconnor
Well, that seems to have completely backfired on the EU. I guess there are at
least a few companies that will be happy to use Android without Google, but my
guess is for the rest this is just more bottom line money out of their pocket
going straight to Google. Was this what they were going for?

~~~
distances
> Well, that seems to have completely backfired on the EU.

I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. This seems rational to me,
and in line with the antitrust decision as the bundling of apps isn't any more
mandatory for manufacturers.

~~~
jackconnor
I'm saying the premise as a whole backfired. I assume the end goal was to
benefit end consumers. Now, end consumers will have to pay more for something
that was previously free, since my gut says that most device companies will
choose to pay the licensing agreement and just pass the costs along by
increasing the sticker price.

~~~
IanCal
If there's an actual cost to the items it now means other providers could
actually compete, which is the goal. It would now be possible to sell cheaper
than Google if you can make something the consumer wants at a lower cost.
Competition benefits consumers.

More importantly was that Google were doing various forced things (like
requiring installing all Google things on all devices, heavily limiting
possible competition). Ending that is important, even if it shifts costs
around.

Edit - a simple way of viewing this is if this makes more money for Google,
why weren't they doing it anyway? If not, can it really be costing consumers
more?

------
rahimnathwani
"By obligating handset makers to load the free apps along with the Android
operating system, regulators said Google had boxed out competitors."

This is some sloppy reporting. The 'Android operating system' is licensed
under the Apache 2.0 licence[0]. Nothing in that licence obligates handset
manufacturers to 'load the free apps'.

[0]
[https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses](https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses)

~~~
Someone1234
The article is correct, you're mistaken. While AOSP is licensed under Apache
2.0, in order to bundle the Play Store and associated Google services you have
to agree to MADA[0]. No major manufacturer, except Amazon, ships an AOSP
variant without Google's Services.

Arguably many of Android's core APIs now flow through Play Store Services
(e.g. Location Services).

[0] PDF warning: [http://www.benedelman.org/docs/htc-
mada.pdf](http://www.benedelman.org/docs/htc-mada.pdf)

~~~
rahimnathwani
"The article is correct, you're mistaken."

No, I'm not.

"in order to bundle the Play Store and associated Google services you have to
agree to MADA"

But "the Play Store and associated Google services" aren't part of Android. So
you can ship Android devices without them.

"No major manufacturer, except Amazon, ships an AOSP variant without Google's
Services."

Yup. Amazon shows that you can ship Android devices without the Play Store and
Google services.

~~~
Someone1234
You are because you misread the section of the article you quoted:

> By obligating handset makers to load the free apps along with the Android
> operating system

The NYC article said google was compelling handset makers to bundle free apps
ALONG WITH the Android OS, they didn't say that Android OS's license required
said bundling.

Google obligated handset makers via the MADA linked above. If you want the
Play Store, Play Services, and all of Android's APIs to work, you have to
agree to MADA which means bundling Google's apps with the Android OS.

~~~
rahimnathwani
"Google obligated handset makers via the MADA linked above."

Handset makers obligated _themselves_ by (voluntarily) signing up to the MADA.

~~~
Someone1234
When you get into antitrust scales of size nothing is voluntary, that's the
whole crux of this issue. If you wanted your handset to sell you had to play
nice with Google and do what Google told you.

Handset makers didn't really have much of a choice, they weren't big enough to
compete directly with Google.

~~~
tssva
Samsung is a huge multinational conglomerate with hundreds of billions of
revenue and tens of billion in yearly profits. They also sell over 20% of all
smartphones switching position back and forth with Apple for leading market
share.

I find it hard to believe that they were too small in comparison with Google
to compete with their own mobile OS and app market.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
> I find it hard to believe that they were too small in comparison with Google
> to compete with their own mobile OS and app market.

They already tried, more than once, and all their attempts failed.

------
bubblethink
This doesn't change the end result too much in the traditional Android
ecosystem because nothing changes on the engineering side of things. You still
need a system level play services blob to run most common android apps. And
this doesn't change that. However, what's interesting is that if the non-
compete exclusivity clause has been overruled, someone like Samsung can launch
phones with their play services equivalent, or someone like Amazon or
Microsoft can get more manufacturers to build phones with their play services
equivalent. Any of these should theoretically reduce the reliance on play
services.

~~~
pkaye
Now they need to make Apple do.the same with their app store.

~~~
kodablah
Unrelated and a bit whataboutist, but if the rules are triggered at a certain
market share, Apple will price themselves as necessary to remain under that
share.

------
Urgo
So let me get this..

Google allows 3rd parties to use their OS, allows 3rd party app stores, etc
but gets a huge fine for bundling their own native app store.

Apple doesn't allow 3rd parties to do anything and you need to use their app
store but they're totally fine here.

Good job Europe.

~~~
simion314
But Google can put the hell they want on the Pixel and whatever phones they
make, the issue is forcing others to bundle your apps.

~~~
bepotts
It's Google's operating system. Nobody would buy a Samsung, HTC, or Sony phone
without Google's Research and Development.

Smartphone manufacturers are in the smartphone business _because_ of Google.
If those manufacturers don't like Google's terms, they're free to go
Microsoft's route and build their own OS.

Nobody is forcing these companies to do anything.

~~~
asr
I can make exactly the same point in reverse: "It's the manufacturer's phone.
If Google doesn't want to offer its OS on terms that comply with EU
competition law, it's free to go the Apple route and simply build all of its
own phones. Nobody is forcing Google to do anything."

Google and its smartphone partners are _both_ in the business _because of each
other_. If Google had kept Android closed and limited to its own phones, it
would not have become the #1 mobile OS -- we'd be using Palm or Microsoft or
Nokia or someone else's product.

------
MarkMc
So Google will charge Samsung $1,000 per handset for Play Services, but then
pay Samsung $1,000 to have Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, etc pre-installed.

Result: Google meets its legal obligations to unbundle their software but in
practice the handset manufacturers don't have a choice.

~~~
andun
Yes, they will have the choice of also selling Android handsets without Play
Services, which before they couldn't do.

~~~
s3r3nity
This. Samsung has already done deals with Microsoft and Dropbox previously to
pre-load their services on some Samsung phones.

Imagine if you could buy a "Windows" Android, with Office 365 + bing preloaded
and optimized like a Windows Phone 2.0 sold next to a Google Android phone. As
a consumer, I love having that type of option, and the manufacturer can also
add their own software / services.

~~~
makomk
Historically speaking, if I remember correctly, Microsoft has paid phone
manufacturers and cell networks to set Bing as the search engine on their
smartphones _and completely disable the ability for users to change it_. I
reckon a large part of the reason Google ended up paying to set their search
engine as the default on mobile is because otherwise many users would have to
jump through hoops every time they searched just to use it. If this goes
through, you will use Bing for searches on mobile and you will like it.

------
qwerty456127
I hope this is going to help to attract more attention to competing services.
The only Google thing that I don't know of a good alternative to (at least
because it already has so much valuable content uploaded) is YouTube.
Monopolies are evil.

~~~
kmlx
Respectfully I disagree.

Monopolies are good, they create lasting value (see google). All companies
should strive to build monopolies and own their market.

Peter Thiel - 0 to 1

~~~
qwerty456127
IMHO they should strive to by means of fair practices (that don't include
using their dominant positions to suppers competition or use their wealth to
buy-and-close other companies) but should never achieve that.

------
ocdtrekkie
This is fantastic. By placing a cost on Google Apps, competitors have a viable
place to provide an alternative offer at a lower price. This is exactly the
sort of change we need here in the US as well. Mission success in Europe.

Probably the biggest question I have is that they still appear to be selling
"bundles" according to the article, which seems contrary to the European
decision. Is a phone manufacturer who licenses "the bundle" allowed to omit
apps from the bundles? Or have the bundles been narrowly defined around the
EU's current ruling of which bundles aren't allowed, and they're still going
to force OEMs to carry specific sets of Google apps?

~~~
c8g
>“Android phone makers wishing to distribute Google apps may now also build
noncompatible, or forked, smartphones and tablets” in Europe, Google said in a
statement. “They will also be able to license Google Play separately from
Search and Chrome, with full freedom to install rival apps as before.”

------
MarkMc
I don't understand why Google are doing this. I thought the EU imposed that
huge fine because Google had a clause in their contract with handset
manufacturers that said, "If you want Play Services, you cannot sell a forked
version of Android". Why can't Google simply remove this clause?

~~~
AnssiH
There were three separate issues, and they have now been addressed by Google:

1\. App bundling.

2\. Selling Android forks.

3\. Payments for exclusive installation of Google Search.

[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-4581_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-4581_en.htm)

[https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-
europe/compl...](https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-
europe/complying-ecs-android-decision/)

------
gandalfian
Are we sure it isn't the other way around? You will be able to pay for
permission to NOT install Google apps?

------
jraph
Well, too bad, this means that as a customer, I'll probably have to pay for
something I go out of my way to get rid of if I ever buy a new Android phone.

I hope there will be some way to get a refund like when not accepting Windows
licenses on computers.

------
alienreborn
3 Choices for OEMS:

\- ASOP Vanilla or their forked version [Free]

\- Include Play Store and Google Services [Pay up]

\- Add-on Chrome with Google Search on top of Play Store [Free]

Prices of flagship phones are already higher than they are in US, now they
will be increased again.

~~~
anowlcalledjosh
Is this speculation, or sourced? The article seems to contradict you:

> Google said it would sell a license for a package including its Google Play
> app store, Gmail, YouTube and Maps. Another license will be available for
> companies that want to pre-install Google Search and the Chrome browser,
> allowing handset makers to team up with rival services. The company did not
> say how much it would charge for the licenses.

~~~
alienreborn
[https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-
andro...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-android-
licensing-bundle-chrome-search)

------
Mikeb85
This is silly. It's a much better experience to use the Google suite of apps
on Android than the random shit browsers/email clients/music players/etc...
that Samsung, LG and others put on their phones. At the end of the day,
Android is open source and anyone is welcome to fork (Amazon)/not use Google
apps (Chinese manufacturers in China), this is just handing Apple a massive
advantage for being a closed ecosystem and a huge loss for consumers and OEMs.

~~~
asr
> anyone is welcome to fork

This is wrong. One of the three major pieces of this case is the allegation
that Google has hindered those who wish to fork by preventing them from making
phones with any of the major phone OEMs:

 _" In particular, Google ... has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-
install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on
alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called
'Android forks')."_

[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-4581_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-4581_en.htm)

~~~
Mikeb85
They can fork if they don't want to pre-install Google apps. Lots of Chinese
phones have alternative app stores.

~~~
asr
No, until now, you were not allowed to fork just because you agreed not to
install Google apps on that phone -- you were only allowed to fork if you
didn't want to install Google apps _on any phone you made_. So, for example,
Samsung couldn't decide to offer an Android phone without Google unless it was
willing to shut down its entire current business.

The allegation is that because of this, anyone looking to fork Android had a
very hard time finding good OEMs to make their phones. E.g., maybe the Amazon
fire phones would have worked if they could have gotten a Tier 1 OEM to make
the phones so they could have put out a better product. But nobody would agree
to stop making all of their current Android phones to see (I assume; there is
no public version of the decision yet so I'm making up the example).

~~~
dirkgently
AOSP is completely open for anyone to work. It's as simple as that. Nobody is
forced to use Google apps. They are free to fork and come up with a way for
people to install apps from their own app store.

------
394549
> By obligating handset makers to load the free apps along with the Android
> operating system, regulators said Google had boxed out competitors.

It sounds like a very good thing to me to prevent companies like Google from
having such terms, which allow them to use dominance on one area to fuel
dominance in many others. Each product should stand on it's own, and the idea
that the entire ecosystem is one big product is frankly BS.

------
Animats
Cool. Does this mean Android phones will run properly without any Google
services?

------
tannhaeuser
Fantastic. Can I have my Samsung phone retroactively switched to a Google-free
O/S, with the option to install Maps and maybe a couple other services? I'd
even pay extra for it.

~~~
dna_polymerase
Like LineageOS + Micro G? Yes, that's possible. Requires some work though.

------
beerlord
What is the commercial motivation of Google to maintain AOSP now? They are
just enabling their 'competitors'.

------
KaoruAoiShiho
If any phone makers actually have the courage to try to bootstrap a new non-
google ecosystem, bravo to you.

------
butz
Who needs app stores anyway? Let's build progressive web apps and target all
platforms.

~~~
kitten_mittens_
Aren’t PWAs only supported on Google’s very own browser?

------
thrillgore
They'll pass the price on to their consumers, or make their own stand-ins.

------
z0d
This will be the death of Android. Thanks to EU bureaucracy. They are fine
with Huawei sending data unencrypted to CN servers. Apple charging billions
for their closed walled garden. While Google is giving the OS for free, can
anyone name one OS with alternative app store which works better than Google
platform ? Before anyone jumps about the data mining. How about we talk about
the Google dashboard options vs M$ / Apple (draconian idol) / FB or <Any
company>.

"They will also be able to license Google Play separately from search and
chrome, will full freedom to install rival apps" Hogwash.

Look at Amazon phones preloaded with bloatware and lockscreen ads and stupid
quality fork. Or the MIUI Chinese crap, Huawei local market and how can we
forget that VLC banned Huawei for their aggressive background killing ? This
puts more corporate companies to turn their rubbish grade services and ruin
Android UX further, add more fragmentation due to no Google involvement in the
Gplay app Targeting or the security scanning from Gplayprotect.

I don't use assistant and all the background services and logging are stopped,
search tracking is off, location history is off. I can set the permissions
with every app and they stick. Unlike the rubbish iOS asking for each and
every app for location for eg - settings needs location for what ? And need of
iTunes BS for using the phone itself. And unable to sideload, or basic copying
of music ? Add the HW ecosystem lockdown, planned obsolescence with their
trash book pros - sealed batteries to the chassis, BGA soldered chips, prone
to fail KB, flawed VRMs, Proprietary chips for EC HW from Basic I/O to
Encryption.

Google is already dying due to the scale of them and trying to being
innovative (stocks) and comply with US GOVT (NSA) but this EU incapable of
delivering something substantial on the same grounds is relegated to these
stupid political policies (controversial Article 13/14).

Brainwash of Apple and their walled garden is so fruitful ever, $1Bn no one
cards about Android because they think its cheap but the fundamental aspect of
offering choice - Bootloader unlock. Running GPL v2 code, Linux kernel, side
load, root and tons of control in your hand, no worries Google is already
chasing the same path with ChromeOS trash with rehashed Ubuntu/Gentoo running
a containerized OS, running Android apps blown up, but ashamed to name Android
at the event ! Fuschia OS another MIT license, to make Google sole controller
over the OS unlike Android with GPL which enforces the changes to be Open
sourced as well unlike the former which doesn't stipulate anything like that,
once you make the changes behind the closed source you don't need to push
them.

Yeah, Slate doesn't have a headphone jack, Pixel 3XL ugly imitation, Android
P's downgrade from draw over other apps, killing accessibility APIs hard SDK
targeting, closure of the hidden APIs loss of the QS settings in P, aggressive
sand boxing like removal of app mah level battery consumption with packages in
the name of security. Not just Android. windows too with their WDDM2.x and UWP
walled garden over Win32 and 6 Month EOL perpetual alpha mining Guinea pig OS
called Win10 Home. Its a shame how massive Apple impacts due to their market
cap. Add the Intel BGA push to the mobile laptops from inspired by Apple
because until Has well Intel HM class chipsets all had rPGA sockets and MXM
GPUs with modular batteries. All is past since Apple started their MacBooks
they all used BGA.

Kudos to everyone who made this Orwellian era possible, all the Apple fans.
Its inevitable that liberty and choice will be drained soon than expected and
we will start living in world like the movie "Equilibrium"

------
yAnonymous
This is actually a good chance for alternative app stores, because that and
the browser are the only essential software you'd be missing from the package,
and the browser can be replaced for free.

I hope we see Google Play vanish. Their pricing and the way it's ran are
cancerous.

Competition would be good, even if it's from Amazon or another major company.
Phones with Amazon Apps and Firefox instead of the whole Google software
package? Yes, please.

------
RaleyField
Good news, everyone! I never wanted them. It would be swell if they could also
start charging for syncing functionality and google account integration.

------
mtgx
Sounds like a good thing for consumers and Android device makers, who will no
longer be coerced by Google to install its apps "for free". It's a pretty bad
thing for Google in the long term, whose apps will inevitably lose market
share.

Although some OEMs will initially "freak out" because they'll think people
will stop buying their phones if Gmail doesn't come pre-installed (I find it
extremely hard to believe, but I guess anything is possible with some people),
eventually they'll likely end-up pre-installing Microsoft or Amazon or whoever
else' apps instead - and _they_ will get paid to do it.

~~~
writepub
Many attempts at decoupling Google & Android have failed in the marketplace.
Billions have been poured into a viable third mobile OS (Windows phone, meego,
tizen, sailfish ...).

The consumers have spoken - they want iOS or Google's Android.

This is horrible for Europe - where end users will eventually pay more for
their preferred 'Google Android'.

~~~
394549
> This is horrible for Europe - where end users will eventually pay more for
> their preferred 'Google Android'.

It won't be "horrible for Europe." Those users have always paid for these apps
in one way or another.

~~~
writepub
What am I missing here? Google isn't _changing_ the data they gather via their
apps. They're adding a $ cost for access to it.

You're basically paying twice - with your more expensive Android devices, and
Google's regular data tracking. This is bad for Europe

~~~
simion314
Samsung may decide to use different apps not Google ones, they may decide to
use a Chromium fork with Bing as search engine so your data will not go do
Google, maybe Mozilla will manage to do a deal with a big manufacturer and put
Firefox as default and nobody will have to pay.

~~~
writepub
What has stopped them from doing this all this while? A shell company by
Samsung renders any deals with Google impotent - a strategy used by many
Chinese OEMs who have Google Android for international markets and their own
app stores within China.

This is _not_ my opinion. If you go to a VC or even YC with these claims, they
will counter with the widely available data pointing towards the _high_
probability of a third ecosystem failing.

