
Antitrust: EU Commission Lodges Complaints on Google for Android OS - Aissen
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm
======
iam-TJ
As I mentioned in an earlier story this week about the rumour of an antitrust
action, this is very reminiscent of the Microsoft antitrust bundling
convictions.

This seems to be the crux from the EU commission fact-sheet [0]:

"Android is an open-source system, meaning that it can be freely used and
developed by anyone to create a modified mobile operating system (a so-called
"Android fork"). The open-source model of course does not raise competition
concerns – on the contrary. The Commission's concerns relate to the conditions
for use of Google's proprietary apps and services on Android devices, which
are not open source.

In particular, if a manufacturer wishes to pre-install Google proprietary
apps, including Google Play Store and Google Search, on any of its devices,
Google requires it to enter into an "Anti-Fragmentation Agreement" that
commits it not to sell devices running on Android forks.

EU antitrust rules allow dominant companies to put in place restrictions only
when they are objectively justified. However, to date, Google has not been
able to show this in relation to the restrictions in the "Anti-Fragmentation
Agreements".

The documents in the case are at [1].

[0] [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm)

[1]
[http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cf...](http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_40099)

------
fkooman
What I'm missing is a list of things that Google has to fix, that is in the
benefit of the "consumer". It seems that most things that would be in the
benefit of the consumer have nothing to do with Google, but with the shitty
manufacturers that don't provide (security) updates and stuff their phones
with crap. Things that would help:

\- force manufacturers to have an AOSP build without Google Apps or any of
their customizations, updated when needed (security, new major/minor releases
etc.);

\- force manufacturers to allow users to exercise the 4 freedoms (FSF) with
the above AOSP build up to and including the baseband/firmware/drivers;

\- allow manufacturers to do whatever they want for their default OS installed
when the user buys it (possibly signing a deal with Google for Google Apps
etc.)

I keep on dreaming :-)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
There's no legal reason to mandate FSF's philosophy, but banning the Android
MADA has some huge consumer benefits, because it changes Google's priorities
with Android.

For instance, right now, the Play Store, Chrome, etc. are used as leverage to
get OEMs to sign the agreement. Without that, Google's value proposition
changes. No longer does it make sense for them to withhold these. Google
should want the profits from app or book sales and stuff on all Android
devices. Why wouldn't Google want Kindle users to be able to install Chrome?
Why wouldn't Google want Kindle users to be able to buy movies from Play?

And if Google opens up availability of their Android apps and services, this
changes the dynamic considerably. They'll no longer be able to guarantee that
any given Android device they offer apps on has the Play Services malware
component. Play Services will need to be unbundled: Google apps will need to
include everything they need to run on open source Android.

Not only does this open up the opportunity for Google services on other
Android devices, it also means Google has a strong incentive to take some of
their existing proprietary Play Services features and contribute them to open
source, so that their apps can take advantage.

Additionally, Google has long used security updates as a stick to force OEMs
to upgrade to the latest versions of Android. Without Android MADA level
controls, Google will not be able to do that. So Google's best bet is to
provide long-term servicing of their platform. Android versions will need to
receive security updates for longer, and they'll need to be made as easy as
possible for OEMs to integrate into their builds. Expect better written
platform code.

But the biggest thing is that consumers will have choice. No longer will 85%
of all phones in a carrier store be nearly identical clones of Google's
preferred configuration. There'll be more reason for OEMs to innovate in
different ways. People will have non-Google choices available in store.

Think about what Samsung could offer now that they couldn't before: Customize
your phone's OS on order. Maybe Samsung offers a "Galaxy" config with all of
Samsung's apps, or a Pure Google config with all of Google apps. And a
Microsoft config for people who are going to use it at work with their
Windows-based networks! Select the one you want, and Samsung can offer that,
they're no longer beholden to an agreement that forces them to preload a
prescribed set of apps.

~~~
fkooman
You make some good points, and it would certainly help somewhat, but it won't
solve the underlying problem. Instead of real choice and ability to buy
something that will be under your control instead of the manufacturer or
operator you need more than giving Samsung et al the ability to remove Google
Chrome and install their own browser infested with spyware that no longer
receives security updates after it ships and cannot be removed. If these
constructs Google enforces on the manufacturers are indeed illegal, why don't
Samsung, HTC, etc. not sue Google to get it sorted? I mean, it is a b2b
problem.

A Galaxy config? Yeah, they have that now more or less, they offer many
alternatives next to the Google ones installed by default that are in all ways
inferior to the Google versions of those apps. They replace one big company
services with another and do a worse job. No benefit for users.

Anything that does not bring benefits to projects like e.g. Replicant or
CopperheadOS are in the end meaningless for "consumer" freedom and progress in
the mobile device space.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Why do you make the assumption that anything that's not Google is infested
with spyware?

~~~
fkooman
The Google proprietary stuff, and some of the free parts in Android are also
already spyware. But adding an additional layer of proprietary software is
just no good for the user :-)

I mean, I can also rant about CyanogenMod using oCLock (or whatever it is
called) that sends by default your exact GPS locations over HTTP (not HTTPS!)
to Yahoo.

Allowing Samsung to put their own stuff on top will just not improve anything
for the user, it will improve stuff for Samsung, but I don't care about that.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Not necessarily on top. Samsung can already layer more stuff on top, but this
would enable Samsung to replace things. Now, yes, that might be exchanging
Google spyware with Samsung spyware, but at least you can choose who's spying
on you? (Using different services for different things can help keep all of
your data off a single profile, at least.)

------
ocdtrekkie
I'm so glad this is happening. My only fear is that Google will end up making
the deals they make manufacturers sign different by region of distribution:
That this decision won't help those of us living and buying devices outside
the EU region. I really hope Google realizes that their agreements on Android
are not in keeping with the spirit of Google's vision and morals, and apply
changes to their business globally.

------
andybak
I'm conflicted on this from a practical point of view. It seems fairly clear
to me that Android has got better the more Google asserts control. OEMs and
carriers can't be trusted not to screw things up and the consumer tends to
suffer.

Whilst there's good arguments in favour of forcing Google to allow alternative
search, email etc services to be installed - I suspect it will result in a
worse user experience for most people.

~~~
nugget
Worse user experience in the short term but much better for everyone (except
Google) in the long term as new ideas and companies have a chance to survive
and grow on the platform. It's very reminiscent of Microsoft and IE.

