
Google Said to Be Under U.S. Antitrust Scrutiny Over Android - Rifu
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-25/google-said-to-be-under-u-s-antitrust-scrutiny-over-android-iezf41sg
======
devit
What about Apple, who, if antitrust law applies to them, would be the most
egregious antitrust violator of all time in the tech industry, far worse than
Google?

Microsoft was convicted for merely including Internet Explorer along with
Windows while Apple not only includes Safari, but prevents anyone else from
offering browser engines (!) on its platform.

As well as tying iPhone/iPad hardware to iOS and viceversa, iOS to App Store
and viceversa, iOS development to OSX, OSX to Mac hardware, App Store to 30%
fees on developers and being subject to Apple's arbitrary whims with no
recourse including being prevented from competing with any Apple software
(under the "cannot replicate system functions" clause).

It seems the theory that "antitrust law only applies to monopolists" is saving
them, but of course they are doing enormous damage with their lock-in even
with 50% market share due to the large platform network effects.

~~~
Ensorceled
Google has dominate market share in critical technology markets; smart phone,
search, online advertising. Apple has minority market share in pretty much all
their markets.

Microsoft had over 90% market share at the time they used their free, and
really crappy, IE to pretty much destroy all other browser developers.

It's not anti-trust unless it hurts _consumers_. Being forced to develop on
Apple software/hardware affects consumers not at all. What harm is resulting
from being forced to use a webkit browser? Being able to load only apps vetted
by Apple would also be difficult to show harm given all the malware that keeps
popping up on Android.

Apple is only 38% market share, Google is ~60%, it's right in the article.
World wide Apple is only 18%.

I know people hate Apple but really, can we stick to hating them for the crap
they actually do.

~~~
Steltek
> FTC officials have met with technology company representatives who say
> Google gives priority to its own services on the Android platform, while
> restricting others

AOSP is Open Source. Starting from that, Google hasn't restricted anything.
Going forward from there, Google (with Play, Play Services) has gradually
started tightening things up _because_ of harm to consumers. Is your Android
phone running the latest security patches. No? Google needed a way to push out
critical updates and their behind-the-scenes position means they have more
limited control than Apple does. It obviously doesn't solve everything but I'd
argue that they're doing their best to protect consumers.

~~~
Ensorceled
Google Android is NOT open source. If you want to use Google Android you are
restricted. You can FORK Android and build your own but that is a massive
undertaking.

This isn't about software products anyway, it's about services, search in
particular.

But this is irrelevant, I'm not attacking Google, I'm disputing the "Apple is
the bigger anti-trust violator" idea, which is just silly.

~~~
RealityVoid
I'm lost, isn't THAT what open source means? Having access to source code?
(Witch you do on Android)

~~~
Ensorceled
To compete with "Google Android", I would need to fork the android source,
market and brand this new "EnsorcelOS", develop my own backend services for
updates and registration, negotiate with Bing or some other search and
services company, develop my own app store, ...

Saying that Android is Open Source doesn't actually make competitors to
"Google Android" viable or numerous.

~~~
Oletros
> Saying that Android is Open Source doesn't actually make competitors to
> "Google Android" viable or numerous

Tell that to Chinese Android manufacturers.

Apart that your comment has nothing to do with Android being open source or
not. it is irrelevant if a fork is competitive or not, AOSP is still open
source

------
blinkingled
Microsoft is behind it at least in the EU probe. I would surprised if they had
nothing to do with US probe as well.

That aside if the whole idea for the probe is that Google prefers their own
services on Android while restricting others - it's going to be a tough one to
substantiate given Microsoft already can ship all of their apps as replacement
to Google's - Cortana for example.

If Antitrust wasn't just about market share but also profit share then Apple
is doing far more to invite a probe than Google in the Smart Phone market.

------
cromwellian
Here are the options one has when trying to make a phone:

1) Write your own OS from scratch 2) Borrow an existing OS (e.g. Linux) and
build all of rest of the layers and services (e.g. Tizen) 3) Borrow an
existing mobile OS (e.g. Android), and build all of the rest of the layers and
services (FireOS, etc) 4) Borrow an existing mobile OS (e.g. Google Android),
and all the layers and services

What vendors seem to be saying is #1, #2, and #3 are "too hard" and that
consumers are demanding Google's Apps and Services. What these manufacturers
want to do is, design some commodity hardware, put on the stuff consumers are
demanding (Google's services), but then load them up with other stuff (which
many consumers would call bloatware or junk).

But how easy should one expect it to be to ship a phone? Seriously, 10 or 20
years ago, you not only had to make a lot of custom hardware design, but you
had to have a lot of inhouse embedded software engineering. These days, most
of this stuff is available off the shelf, and Chinese manufacturers can slap
together a new phone and drop Android in it extremely quickly, all at low
cost.

If there was no Android, and just two proprietary platforms (iOS + Windows, or
iOS + Symbian), their situation would be even worse.

Android's brand already has bad branding from fragmentation and security
issues. Paradox of choice tends to drive conformity and commodification, so
I'm not sure the situation would be much better otherwise.

If you want to launch consumer phone hardware and get lots of customers, IMHO,
you should expect it to be hard and differentiating and have to put in
enormous software work. I honestly don't think Android manufacturers are going
to standout on small software tweaks and packaging of apps.

If you're an Android manufacturer and you think the key to standing out in
innovation, I don't think it's going to come from skinning Android and
replacing one of apps on the homescreen. Just IMHO, but this seems more like
companies wanting to take shortcuts without putting in the hardwork that Apple
or Google have made to convince users of the value of a custom platform.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Hi Ray. Remember how I told you exactly how the MADA was an illegal violation
of antitrust law? And now multiple countries worldwide are investigating
Google on exactly those claims? - Jacob Weisz

I disagree the situation would be worse without Google. In China, where Google
isn't competing, there are more platforms available. The only non-Google
Android devices that have an appreciable market share are able to thrive.

And as for using 'user experience' as a justification for Google's contracts:
Why is Nexus still so unpopular if Google's so good at UX?

And as for using 'security' as a justification for Google's contracts: Why
doesn't the MADA contain anything about security update requirements, and why
are so many Androids with Google Apps still vulnerable to Stagefright and even
old versions of OpenSSL with Heartbleed?

------
Grazester
Isn't the prices of using Google's play services for "free" by manufacturers
that you must include so many of Google's Apps? I mean surely they can expect
Google to provide it services without a cost or catch.

If manufacturers don't want to do it then they could still use Android san the
play services like a lot of Chinese manufacturers are doing.

I find these anti trust investigations against Google that are based on the
fact that manufacturers have to bundle Google's App ridiculous.

~~~
LLWM
Sounds identical to the arguments MS used back in the 90s. They lost.

~~~
Grazester
Windows was free? You were paying for your OS which was distributed by the
company you were paying for it from.That is their source or revenue. The
Google's play services is Google's revenue stream. Hope that made sense. In my
head it does. LOL

------
xlm1717
There are a few interesting questions here. My gut reaction was to say, it
doesn't restrict access to Android, anyone can fork it at will. But the
specific issue they address is Google's suite of Android apps.

I know for me as an end user, it's very inconvenient when I don't want to use
Google's Android, but still want access to the Google Play Store. If you use
Cyanogenmod or other custom apps, you have to download google apps. If you use
Amazon's Fire devices, the process is a little more inconvenient. On the one
hand you have to wonder whether this harms adoption of third-party Android
devices, running Cyanogenmod, FireOS, OxygenOS, or any of a number of other
custom Android forks. However, Amazon has become somewhat successful in
introducing an alternate app marketplace, and this leads to the other
question.

Is Google's inclusion of Google apps only on Google android harmful to other
app developers? I know personally, if I had a choice between the Google Play
Store and the Amazon Appstore, I would choose Google Play 100%. It just has
more of the apps I want. But if you want to give users an option, how would
you do it? I suppose a scenario similar to what the EU imposed on Microsoft
would work, where on activation you would pick from a list of appstores to
download to your device. This would at least give users options. I also know
personally that I would just stick with the default Maps and Chrome apps if
they were bundled with the device instead of giving me a choice of downloading
alternate maps and browser apps. This makes it hard for developers of those
apps to compete.

Ultimately, this just goes to show that you should take the claim that Android
is "open" with a grain of salt. Not only is Google restricting access to
Android, there's also this troubling bit from the article:

>“When we say we’re concerned, it’s not only because [the FTC] didn’t do a
good investigation the first time around, or the fact that they didn’t protect
the confidentiality of the people who complained," Reback said, “but also
because they seem to take directions from Google.”

------
ocean3
"who say Google gives priority to its own services on the Android platform" \-
isn't that the same across other OS. MS still has around 90% desktop share and
don't they prioritize over IE and Bing search.

~~~
Ensorceled
Yes. But it's not harming consumers in the US (anymore) as less than 40% of
people are using IE on the desktop, chrome is the dominate browser. In the EU,
MS has to give people the choice of browser on install for this reason.

~~~
ocean3
Why would usage matter here since FTC seems to be considering bundling.

~~~
Ensorceled
Pragmatics. It's hard to win a anti-trust case at the best of times. When the
"locked in" browser is actually losing the race, it's really hard to win.

------
crimsonalucard
> In the last two years, the FTC has shown it will pursue big technology
> companies in consumer-fraud cases. It has accused Google, Amazon.com Inc.
> and Apple Inc. of wrongly billing consumers for unauthorized purchases made
> by children on mobile applications. Google and Apple settled the FTC
> complaint and agreed to refund money to consumers. Amazon said it would
> fight the lawsuit.

That's a pathetic track record. Corporations have done crimes equivalent to
mass murder and the "biggest case" the ftc has taken on is refunding a fucking
app store purchase that was probably my fault for not keeping an eye on my
kid? I almost hope amazon wins.

~~~
ptaipale
"equivalent to mass murder"? Isn't that a bit of an overstatement?

~~~
Ensorceled
The company [GM] continued to recall more of its cars over the next several
months, resulting in nearly 30 million cars worldwide recalled and paid
compensation for 124 deaths.[1]

No, not really an overstatement.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall)

~~~
blisterpeanuts
It is interesting that people focus so intensely on these deaths while almost
not caring about the other 32K car deaths per year (plus hundreds of thousands
of injuries and billions of dollars in damages) just in the U.S. alone. One
month is the equivalent of a 9/11, for which the nation mobilized and waged
war halfway around the world.

In my opinion all this bloviating about ignition switches, bundled browsers
etc. misses the mark. We should be demanding much safer and more survivable
vehicles. I sure don't want to die on the road or see my loved ones crippled
by some drunk driver.

Let's legislate survivability at highway speeds. Go back to the drawing board
and come up with something that works--collision avoidance, prison for DUI,
explosive bumpers--anything to reduce those numbers.

~~~
ptaipale
I don't know exact statistics about the US, but in my country (Finland), it is
getting very difficult to reduce the number of deaths in traffic by the kind
of actions you propose.

First of all, around one fifth of people killed in traffic have committed
suicide. They take their car, take off the seatbelt, and drive as fast as they
can and hit an oncoming heavy goods vehicle. That's bad, because it is very
traumatic to the people who drive trucks and transport stuff. They get injured
physically, and even worse, emotionally. You can't stop this by making better
cars; you might stop it by having only Google-driven robot cars (so we go
merry round with the discussion on how evil corporations are). And even then,
if people can't kill themselves with a car, they'll find something else. Next,
you'll be banning pedestrian bridges.

Over one tenth of traffic deaths here are natural deaths. I.e. they are
recorded in traffic death statistics, and they are used for justifying car and
fuel taxes, but in fact it's the old man got a heart attack or a stroke, and
died, and there's not a scratch to the car. Or just fell off the road on his
bike. But it's still a traffic death here.

Then there are the tragic accidents where a child is run over by a heavy goods
vehicle. Most of this is not about speed; it's about noticing people who were
in a blind spot. We've had three children killed in an few weeks in this
nation in similar accidents, and that is too much. Here, some automatic
detection technology will probably help a bit.

But what's the bulk of traffic accidents? Mostly it's tremendous idiocy which
is hard to legislate away. People who are DUI at four times the legal limit,
are driving three times the speed limit, and running away from police because
they don't have a driver's license, and they have no seat belts, and then they
hit a tree and everyone in the car is killed.

More survivable vehicles help, and in fact the development has been huge over
the past years, but particularly the people who are gross idiots are also
people who drive older cars, so they are less protected.

And still, considering all this, I think road traffic is remarkably safe, and
when I think how much people move around, accidents are few and far between.

------
IBM
Must be because Europe can't compete with American tech companies.

~~~
nisdec
SAP?

------
venomsnake
> The Federal Trade Commission reached an agreement with the Justice
> Department to spearhead an investigation of Google’s Android business, the
> people said. FTC officials have met with technology company representatives
> who say Google gives priority to its own services on the Android platform,
> while restricting others, added the people, who asked for anonymity because
> the matter is confidential.

So we are going after the most open platform for which switching any part of
the system is going to the playstore/F-Droid instead of the apple shaped
elephant in the room.

And Apple is the biggest single vendor of smartphones in US ... go figure.

~~~
delinka
"Biggest single vendor" perhaps, but certainly not a monopoly on smart phones,
nor smart phone operating systems, nor smart phone apps ...

Just because they take the lions share of the industry's profits doesn't mean
that they sell a monopolistic number of devices.

~~~
venomsnake
google has even less of a monopoly. You cannot be monopolist with GPL product.

~~~
throwawaykf05
If not already, you should read this article:
[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-
on-...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-
controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/)

------
blisterpeanuts
Here we go again. A group of smaller companies that can't compete on their own
merits point the hapless FTC in the direction of the most successful company,
paint them as a monopolist, and sit back and watch the fun. Sales of popcorn
must be soaring.

The notion that "bundling" is anti-competitive is so 1995. No one in the real
world minds bundling, no one is hurt by it, and everyone would be
inconvenienced by some kind of unbundling solution to satisfy the 10 people in
the world who oppose Google's right to package its services together.

There are real and egregious abusers of the system--bribing federal judges,
giving kickbacks to food inspectors, paying off legislators and Congressional
staffers to slant the laws and regulations in favor of a particular supplier--
and these do hurt honest competitors and cause us all to pay more for goods
and services.

But to go after a large company merely because it's large and influential and
highly successful... These regulators are simply out of control.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
You mean like how Google is a big time donor to quite a few Congresspeople,
who write letters and vote on behalf of Google in our Congress?

See Anna Eshoo: Her biggest donor is a Google employee, and she's literally
written a letter defending Google to the EU Parliament on Congressional
letterhead, signed by a bunch of other Congresspeople, many of whom also had
their campaigns at least partially supported by Googlers.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Any evidence of wrongdoing here? Many interest groups donate and lobby. You
want to ban all donations and lobbying by private for-profit organizations?

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Unfortunately, buying off Congresspeople is currently legal. It doesn't make
it any less horrifically immoral. And anyways, your comment is irrelevant, as
I was responding to the parent comment.

The parent commenter suggested that Google was not one of those "egregious
abusers of the system" that exploits the system by buying off legislators.
Unfortunately, that isn't true, as I've demonstrated here, by proving Google
has certainly heavily paid legislators (via "donations"), who have in turn
advocated DIRECTLY for Google.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Rep. Anna Eshoo represents the 18th District in California, home of Google and
many other major technology companies. I would think it's reasonable and
logical that she would advocate for technology companies, considering that
probably tens of thousands of voters in her district work for them.

As for financial support by Google, Rep. Eshoo received a total of $6,400 from
Google (individuals + PAC)[1], out of some $160,000+ in donations in the most
recent election cycle. It seems unlikely that this level of support could be
termed "buying off".

[1][https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N000...](https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00007335)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
This cycle is just starting, check 2014 for a mpre accurate accounting,
blisterpeanuts. Opensecrets.org is where I pull my data too. She took in four
times that last term, and Google was her biggest sponsor.

