
The European Commission versus Android - denzil_correa
https://stratechery.com/2018/the-european-commission-versus-android/
======
galadran
A pretty well written analysis. I think the author is mistaken on two
important points though.

The author writes that due to Google Play Services, most Android apps are in
fact Google Play apps and couldn't be used on a non-Google version of Android
without a significant rework. I believe there's already a significant body of
work on providing drop in replacements for Google Play Services, e.g. microG
[1]. There is nothing that stops a manufacturer from providing microG instead
of Play Services and hence cutting Google out.

Secondly, the author complains that:

> More broadly, the European Commission continues to be a bit too cavalier
> about denying companies — well, Google, mostly — the right to monetize the
> products they spend billions of dollars at significant risk to develop.

There's a huge rift in how most Europeans and Americans see the role of
regulators but without getting into that, I want to note Android was not
Google's effort alone and hardly a significant risk. Android as a software
stack is built on the back of the Linux Kernel and a dozen other open source
frameworks (Java, sqlite etc). Equally, Google is hardly responsible for the
hardware. Manufacturer's like HTC and Samsung invested far more in making
Google a success than Google did. The same manufacturers that Google has been
screwing over with its anti competitive practices...

[1] [https://microg.org/](https://microg.org/)

~~~
ucaetano
> There is nothing that stops a manufacturer from providing microG instead of
> Play Services and hence cutting Google out.

Except that microG doesn't work. It is even far behind Amazon's own
implementation of GMS, and Amazon has dumped piles of money into it.

> The same manufacturers that Google has been screwing over with its anti
> competitive practices...

Surprisingly, the manufacturers aren't the ones filing the anti-trust
complaints in this case. The case was brought initially by Oracle, Microsoft &
company.

~~~
prepend
But isn’t this reasonable since Samsung bringing up this lawsuit could be
disastrous in harming their partnership with Google.

The Microsoft case wasn’t brought about by Compaq and Dell either even though
they were being hosed [0]. While the case was brought by states and DOJ, there
was lots of pressure from Netscape/Sun. Not really their hardware partners.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp).

~~~
ucaetano
> But isn’t this reasonable since Samsung bringing up this lawsuit could be
> disastrous in harming their partnership with Google.

Sure, but you can't make the claim that Samsung is then being screwed over by
Google.

> Not really their hardware partners.

Sure, and Samsung preloads its own browser today.

~~~
taeric
Why can't you? You can concede they would get more screwed by dirtying their
relationship, without conceding that they are in a great relationship now.

~~~
ucaetano
> Why can't you?

Because you have no information to make that conclusion.

But if you want to make a wild guess, sure, go ahead.

~~~
taeric
So you don't have a logical reason people couldn't make that claim. You just
want them to provide some evidence to corroborate it?

~~~
ucaetano
"Not having any evidence to corroborate" is logical reason enough not to make
a claim.

~~~
taeric
But that is a different route. Claim that they don't have evidence. Or refute
that the relationship is truly bad. This line was specifically "You can't make
the claim that Samsung is then being screwed over by Google." Sure you can.
Just provide evidence.

So, change that refutation to "what is your evidence taht they are getting
screwed over by Google?" On that, you have my complete agreement.

------
IBM
Sundar Pichai in 2009 [1]:

>Second, Google believes that the browser market is still largely
uncompetitive, which holds back innovation for users. This is because Internet
Explorer is tied to Microsoft's dominant computer operating system, giving it
an unfair advantage over other browsers. Compare this to the mobile market,
where Microsoft cannot tie Internet Explorer to a dominant operating system,
and its browser therefore has a much lower usage.

By the way, I think it's absurd for Google to threaten that they may now
charge a license for Android [2]. They're effectively saying that now that
they've eliminated all competition over the past 10 years and achieved a
dominant share of the market, they're going to raise prices. That's a slam
dunk case even in the US's broken antitrust system.

[1] [https://publicpolicy.googleblog.com/2009/02/browsers-
powered...](https://publicpolicy.googleblog.com/2009/02/browsers-powered-by-
user-choice.html)

[2] [https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17585396/google-
android-e...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17585396/google-android-eu-
fine-response)

~~~
lern_too_spel
The majority of Android phones (including all Samsung phones) have other
browsers preinstalled.

~~~
glitchc
This graph is telling:

[http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-
share/mobile/worldw...](http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-
share/mobile/worldwide)

Subtract the iOS market share from the overall base, and is at 75% market
share of remainder. The only strong competitor is UC Browser at 13.3%. This is
an AliBaba product localized to mainland China. Remove that from the global
market, and we end up with ~90% share for chrome in the rest of the world.
That's antitrust territory.

~~~
lern_too_spel
If other browsers are also included by default, it is not antitrust to include
that browser by default too. The only reason the share of Chrome would be
interesting for antitrust would be if that share were leveraged to promote a
product in another market, which nobody is claiming.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Actually that's exactly what the claim is: That Chrome being mandatorily
included and set as default is used to promote Google Search unfairly. That's
directly in the EU's statement.

~~~
lern_too_spel
No, the claim is that they're using Android's dominant position to push Google
search and other Google products. Chrome's default in itself is not an issue.

------
enitihas
While I understand that the law is not required to be a mathematical statement
and requires case by case interpretation, I wonder if these leaves several
burning questions on the table: 1\. Was it illegal for apple to force install
apple maps on iOS users, stiffling competing maps apps? 2. Is it illegal for
apple to not provide other browsers JIT capabilities, effectively forcing them
to be a skin on top of Safari?

I understand that iOS has no market dominance. But if iOS reaches 60% shares
in a country, can the country demand substantial changes to iOS to encourage
competitors? 70%? 80%?. Does a company need to make its product more open as
it starts dominating the market.

Also, how would such market segments be defined for market domination? Phones?
Smart phones? Phones with a particular characteristics? Phones with a
particular OS(as phone inter operability is widely within OSes only)

As the press release of the commission says "market for .... licensable smart
mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating
system.". It seems using this vocabulary even Apple can be branded a monopoly,
dominant in "unlicensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for
the iOS mobile operating system". Then isn't even apple using their dominance
of "app store for iOS" to dominate other market segments?

~~~
cageface
As Apple enthusiasts love to point out, a huge chunk of Android sales are low
end feature phone replacements. If you exclude those then the two platforms
are much closer to parity in marketshare. And Android's hold is precarious.
Pretty much only Samsung is making any money on Android and even they are
seeing declining sales for their flagship phones. I'm convinced if Apple ever
offers a decent (not iPhone SE) iPhone at around the $300 price point it will
be a bloodbath for Android OEMs.

I'm convinced this decision will one day seen as a mistake by the EC.
Hopefully it won't destroy what is a now a healthy & competitive marketplace
with a lot of meaningful choice for consumers.

~~~
enitihas
Exactly, this decision will benefit apple a lot, as they would be free to
integrate their platform and offerings in all sorts of ways, continuing to
charge their premium, where as the "dominant" mobile OS will have to keep
itself open and not force anything on users or makers.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _this decision will benefit apple a lot_

I don't see how "unt[ying] the Play Store from Search and the Chrome browser,"
stopping "paying OEMs for portfolio-wide search exclusivity," or letting OEMs
sell "devices with Android forks" helps Apple that much [1]. Android will
still exist. Play Services and Store will remain Google's castles. OEMs will
continue selling Google's bundle. All that changes is now they don't have to.

Worst case, Google adds a Play Services licensing fee. If this doesn't result
in American antitrust action (for raising prices after forming a monopoly),
all it will do is increase some phones' prices. If that matters to consumers,
OEMs will be free to release non-Play Android phones at a lower price point.

[1] _Stratchery_

~~~
enitihas
Sadly, the worst case is not google charging some fee. The worst case is that
iOS can become the only mobile os with deep platform integration(apple music,
safari, apple maps, app store), where as Android will become more fragmented.
Part of the appeal of iOS is the seamless experience among all iOS devices. If
your cousin has an iOS device, you can turn to him/her for help. You can
seamlessly buy an iOS device and assume more or less the same experience.

Android? Your cousin's Android may share nothing with yours, and so may your
next Android phone with your current. You may not count on the same browser,
assistant, mail, or maps being available in all Android devices.

You may argue that people will be sure to differentiate between Android A and
Android B, but sadly, people have enough going on in their lives and want
their phone to just work. Guess which OS provided the most consistent
experience among devices and the most homogeneous app ecosystem?

From what I have learned with my interactions with non tech friends of mine,
they don't want to know why such and such app is better than the default one.
They just want things to look and feel the same and just work as long as
possible.

You can argue that android already had custom skins on most brand's phones,
but at least some platform apps used to be common. This may change even that.

~~~
rwj
My wife is upset every time there is an iOS update. No non tech users really
don't want to have to relearn how to operate their phone on a semi regular
basis...

~~~
r00fus
I can say I really hated iOS11 as it killed a lot of my 32-bit apps. Some took
many months to get a 64bit replacement or update. A minor few but important
ones still have no replacement and I had to abandon and change how I was doing
things.

------
trocadero
I think the analogy of Google's castle being search and everything else a
scorched earth tactic to protect that is perfect. It's the heart of my
strongly ambivalent feelings about Google. If you take their major successes
like Maps, Android, Chrome, GMail, Analytics they are all really good
products. They aren't examples of a monopoly giving bad service or forcing an
inferior product on consumers.

The problem is that it sucks the oxygen out of the room for so many
fundamental technologies that we use today. How do you compete with the
combination of massive resources and a willingness to give away things for
free?

~~~
kodablah
Honest question, not tongue in cheek, if there's an instance where consumer
utility and ability to compete are opposing forces, which do we side with? And
if, as I suspect, it is nuanced and not a binary answer, do we ever consider
one of the forces while trying to increase the other? Should the one doling
out anti-competitive punishments be required to recognize consumer
utility/happiness? Should the one implementing consumer utility/happiness be
required to recognize its competitors' abilities? To me it seems the
requirement to recognize the other opposing force is only on the implementer.

~~~
olau
I think the law is there to protect competitors, and that's it.

Why the law is there is of course another matter.

It's like if you go out and kill someone. That person may have been a really,
really horrible person that our society is measuredly better off without. But
unless there's some kind of self-defense involved, you're facing a sentence to
prison.

I'm not trying to equate killing with monopoly abuse, but I find it odd that
the principle that if you break the law, you face the consequences results in
so much questioning.

These cases are meticulously prepared and come from complaints filed with the
authorities. If you read all the paperwork, you'd most likely come to the same
conclusion: Google abused their dominant market position.

~~~
kodablah
> I think the law is there to protect competitors, and that's it.

I disagree. I think it's there (or should be there) to protect
society/consumers, and that's it. I am saying that by excluding all other
consumer effects and pretending that it's there to protect competitors
potentially at the harm of society is invalid. Sometimes they align, sometimes
they don't.

> I'm not trying to equate killing with monopoly abuse, but I find it odd that
> the principle that if you break the law, you face the consequences results
> in so much questioning.

Because the law is vague and subjective. It's not like we have algorithms or
robots determining guilt. The thing that is odd is confusing questioning of
the law with questioning of the idea of breaking laws. And I agree they
probably did abuse their position, but that doesn't relate specifically to the
comment you're responding to which is more about whether abuse is all that
should be taken into consideration.

~~~
s73v3r_
Here's the problem, though: If you say, "Consumers don't seem to be harmed by
this action," you don't know what the alternative could have been. Consumers
could have been much better off with additional competition.

------
kodablah
> Still, it is an unsatisfying remedy: Google built Android for the express
> purpose of monetizing search, and to be denied that by regulatory edict
> feels off; Google, though, bears a lot of the blame for going too far with
> its contracts.

This could be seen another way. Instead of going too far with its contracts,
i.e. limiting the supplier side, the results of these regulations should
entice future companies to not go too far on their distribution, i.e. limiting
the demand side.

If it becomes clear that having a dominant position in a market can be
problematic, a reasonable company might do things to prevent it from happening
including limiting growth, raising prices, stymying third-party
ecosystems/distributions, and reducing feature investment. It can be argued
that these punishments are predictable and easily avoided with self
regulation, we just need to be sure we're happy with the forms this self
regulation may take. Being in a dominant position is rare for sure, but in
these rare cases, if I had a choice, I'd do everything I can do be just under
dominant.

Google might want to start realizing this with Chrome and surreptitiously
support (...er...keep supporting) Firefox or not implement too many features
before others can catch up.

~~~
enitihas
Seeing this entire thing fold out, it seems the best monopolies for a
corporation are the legal monopolies(like iOS), where there are still very
high barriers for customers to switch, but you aren't dominating any well
defined market segment.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Dominating the market segment of people with greater than median average
disposable income seems to be best strategy.

~~~
enitihas
Exactly. It incentivizes corporations to focus on the richer market segment,
where the profit margins can be high enough to compensate the relatively low
volume, and leave the lower end of the market to be dominated by cheaper
alternatives. A product dominating a very low revenue segment may come to be
seen as not worthwhile. Not saying such a strategy should be the goal or will
be easy, but that seems the natural direction large corporations may want to
take.

------
utopcell
This is a well written summary.

From the article, the European Commission requires Google to respond to these
three accusations:

> 1\. Tying Google’s search and browser apps to the Google Play Store.

From the user's perspective, this is not even true. For example, Samsung
devices ship with their own browser on the home screen [a]. The user has to
seek out the Chrome app (that is pre-installed) in order to use it. Besides,
Play, Chrome and Search are Google's products and they should be allowed to
bundle them as they wish. Technically, they could be one app.

> 2\. Paying OEMs to exclusively pre-install Google Search on every Android
> device they made.

This point is moot. Google no longer does that. In fact, unbundling the Play
store from search will force a bidding war for the default search engine,
which will end up with Google paying to add Search on a product they are
giving away for free.

> 3\. Barring OEMs that installed Google’s apps from selling any device that
> ran an Android fork.

This feels absurd to me. Google is under no obligation to offer an open-source
version of Android in the first place. If they decide to retract the OSS
version, which is well within their right, how exactly are OEMs restricted ?
How is EU better off in that case ? Is EU going to _force_ Google to give away
Android for free ?

[a] ..except in the US.

~~~
blub
DuckDuckGo posted some info on their twitter which completely obliterates your
point 1.

Regarding point 3, I've said elsewhere why Android had [1] to be open source
and why they can't easily [2][3] make it closed source.

1:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17561391](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17561391)

2:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17562074](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17562074)

3:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17556971](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17556971)

------
simosx
Being pedantic here. It is in fact versus "Google's current business plan of
Android", not Android per se.

------
JumpCrisscross
Not bad timing for Norway's Opera's end-of-July IPO [1]. (Not suggesting any
nefarious intent on the EU's end.)

[1] [https://seekingalpha.com/article/4187253-first-look-
operas-1...](https://seekingalpha.com/article/4187253-first-look-
operas-106-million-ipo)

~~~
notreallyauser
Norway is not a member of the EU.

~~~
izacus
It is a member of EEA though and this ruling affects them.

