
Google faces EU antitrust fine over Android case - IBM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust/google-faces-eu-antitrust-fine-over-android-case-in-july-sources-idUSKCN1J31SP
======
pdw
The Wikipedia article on this case is much more informative:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google)

> In their Statement of Objections, the European Commission accused Google of
> the breach of EU antitrust rules in three ways:

> \- by requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google
> Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search
> service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google
> proprietary apps;

> \- by preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on
> competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;

> \- by giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network
> operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on
> their devices.

~~~
Wohlf
I cannot for the life of me understand how Apple's ironclad control over the
hardware, OS, and App store isn't considered vastly worse than this.

~~~
mig39
Apple is not a monopoly. You don't like Apple, you go elsewhere.

In much of Europe, Android is the only choice.

~~~
IshKebab
Rubbish. Apple sell their phones in all of Europe.

~~~
mantas
It's enough that Android has massive market share to be monopoly. Back in MS
monopoly times, there were alternatives too (Linux, Apple..).

------
ApolloFortyNine
Apple - OS only runs on their hardware, and you can only install applications
approved by them.

Google - Allows any hardware manufacturer to use their OS, and you can install
any application you want.

And yet the EU is going after Google?

~~~
cpmouter
Google has a near monopoly on smartphones--In my country Android has like 95%
market share.

You can only abuse your dominant position if you have a dominant position, and
Apple does not have one.

~~~
ekianjo
Google does not sell (much) smartphones. If you have several manufacturers
selling Android smartphones where is the monopoly coming from?

~~~
craftyguy
They push their OS, which requires fees from and compliances with
manufacturers.

The same analogy can be drawn from Microsoft and the desktop OS market in the
90s/00s. They had a monopoly Ewen though they didn't sell computers directly.
They still strong-armed manufacturers, like Google is doing today.

~~~
ekianjo
> like Google is doing today.

any source for that?

~~~
craftyguy
Here are some examples:

[https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/03/27/google-confirms-
blo...](https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/03/27/google-confirms-blocking-
google-apps-uncertified-android-devices-heres-deal/)

[https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/10/04/google-announces-
ma...](https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/10/04/google-announces-made-google-
program-certify-accessories/)

Also, you know, the article here and any evidence the EU produces against
Google...

------
amelius
If smartphones were open we wouldn't have the whole problem. Why can't we have
the model of IBM clones of the 80s/90s, where I actually own the device I buy.
Right now, I can't even become root on my device without tricks (which one day
may not even work).

~~~
dragonwriter
> Why can't we have the model of IBM clones of the 80s/90s

Because that model was a costly mistake from IBM’s perspective, which they
tried (and failed) to crush as soon as they realized what was happening (and
later, by promoting a new proprietary architecture with the PS/2).

No one, on the supplier side, wants to repeat that model.

~~~
MBCook
And we ended up with MS being a monopoly, exactly the way the EU says Google
is.

So it wouldn’t even prevent this problem as the OP proposes.

------
setquk
Good. There's nothing more annoying on Android than the Google app presence on
it perhaps ironically and having this pushed at you all the time really puts
you off.

~~~
hadrien01
And the Google Play Services mandatory for almost every third party app. And
Google Location Services so that everytime you need to locate yourself, Google
knows it.

~~~
beenBoutIT
The alternatives to Google's service don't necessarily offer any distinct
advantage in terms of hiding your location whereabouts.
[https://f-droid.org/forums/topic/mozillanlpbackend-vs-
apple-...](https://f-droid.org/forums/topic/mozillanlpbackend-vs-apple-
unifiednlp-backend/)

------
lossolo
People that do not understand why Android is free and fail to recognize how
Google is using its dominating position in one market to dominate other market
should read this "Laws of Tech Economics: Commoditize Your Complement" [1] and
here HN discussion [2].

[1] [https://www.gwern.net/Complement#2](https://www.gwern.net/Complement#2)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17047348](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17047348)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I don't think Google is using its dominant position in one market (search) to
dominate other markets in any way other than financial - search pays the bills
for developing Android. It's not like Microsoft did back in the day, where
dominance in the OS was used to try to force customers to use IE instead of
Netscape.

Google wasn't trying to dominate phones or tablets. They were trying to
_prevent_ Microsoft dominance in those platforms, because they expected that
if Microsoft got dominance there, it would use it to drive all the mobile
searches to Bing.

------
mankash666
This doesn't make sense. Google gives away it's OS for free. It's the
overwhelming major contributor to Android R&D. What's EU's expectation here?
Just give it away for free without an expectation of profit?

This is in contrast to the old Microsoft that required payments of about $40
for their OS license, and they further restricted browser choice etc. Google
is nothing like that, the Android framework and underlying OS is fully open
source. There exist non Google forks of Android, Amazon being the most famous.

Then there's the whole worshipping of Apple - the most evil, monopolistic
company on the planet. Apple's only recourse seems to be their ~17% hardware
market share. Though, that's not really the lens to use. When considering the
'mobile paid apps' market, their position immediately moves into Monopoly
territory, and in that segment that fuck with the developers and consumers in
every way possible.

~~~
polskibus
It's about whether a market strategy makes it hard to compete for others, not
if they make money on it or not, esp. if a company operates on multiple
verticals - they offset "free" on one vertical with monopoly on the other
(ads, search).

~~~
mankash666
No it's not. You cannot wripe away a monopoly's revenue stream in the name of
regulation, you can however ensure that the competition isn't harmed in any
way.

Google should simply offer a choice - install whatever competitor's service,
but license Android for $30. Like Microsoft does and gets away with. Would
that seem fair to you? Because that chat eventually gets passed on to the end
user.

~~~
jonathanyc
Antitrust law is for protecting competition; I think you’re confusing it with
something else. It’s simply not the case that Microsoft “does and gets away
with” antitrust violations because of charging money, this is mentioned in the
article.

Also, I realized I’ve seen you a lot in these sorts of threads posting
fanatically pro-Google stuff, what’s with that?

~~~
mankash666
I'd suggest you keep your personal judgements like 'fanatically' to yourself.
HN steers clear of personal attacks

------
mikelward
The 2016 blog post it refers to is presumably this one:
[https://blog.google/topics/google-europe/android-choice-
comp...](https://blog.google/topics/google-europe/android-choice-competition-
response-europe/)

------
falcon620
It's interesting to see the HN reaction to this. The last time the EU fined
Google a huge amount of money for anti-trust reasons the general sentiment
here was that it was just socialist Europeans taxing American companies trying
to make an honest living.

I guess Google is a lot less popular now compared to like two years ago.

~~~
adventured
I happen to believe the US should begin reciprocal economic targeting against
the EU if they continue down the path of attacking our tech companies via
massive fines as a means to offset their inability to compete. Indeed, this
outcome is guaranteed to occur. The US isn't going to just watch as the EU
continuously steals billions of dollars from its top companies.

They're so far behind in the EU, the US would have to stop all technological
progress for at least a decade to allow them to partially catch up. When
Britain exits the EU, the EU GDP per capita will nearly be 50% lower than the
US. Realistically they have no means to keep up with the US over time, they
simply don't have the financial capability to do it, I almost sympathize with
their desperation.

The US is booming, it'll add a trillion dollars to its GDP this year alone.
Meanwhile half the EU is a perpetual rolling economic disaster still, a decade
after the great recession began. Populists keep gaining more and more traction
in EU countries, with Italy looking like it might be the next to leave the EU.
It really is hard to blame the EU leadership for trying to find some way to
extract value from the US economic dominion, given how weak the EU outlook is.

~~~
pjc50
> When Britain exits the EU

This is looking less and less certain every day, not helped by the fact that
the government has absolutely no idea what it wants or how to achieve it while
increasing numbers of people point out that the "no deal" option results in
total chaos: food shortages within a week etc.

~~~
pjmlp
I still believe even if happens, UK will eventually end up in a situation
similar to Norway, Switzerland, with bilateral agreements, not changing that
much in practice.

~~~
fwdpropaganda
Out of interest, why do you believe that?

I have no strong opinion either way. But I was wondering if your belief isn't
motivated more by your familiarity (with those scenarios) than anything else.

Personally I would note that in those examples you mentioned you have freedom
of movement, which to me seems isn't a politically unacceptable solution in
the UK.

~~~
pjmlp
Not sure.

Yeah, I am familiar with those scenarios, which kind of allow those countries
to benefit from EU agreements without losing too much of their independence,
in comparison with other European countries.

I am also regularly in the UK, and for many people it wasn't clear what being
outside EU meant regarding European companies with HQ in UK.

Having such agreements would allow a kind of win-win situation, leaving EU
while allowing many of those businesses to stay in UK.

That is just a personal opinion, in any case I don't have any vote in UK
matters.

------
jacksmith21006
Little silly. Google should just charge for Android and then credit if ship
with their stuff. Problem solved.

Really think the EU risks getting a worse result with this type of thing.

~~~
detaro
> _Little silly. Google should just charge for Android and then credit if ship
> with their stuff. Problem solved._

You really think that's going to be somehow treated differently?

~~~
Eridrus
It might. If there was a fee, then theoretically other companies could offer
to cover it. Google still gets paid, but other companies get a shot.

MSFT has struck deals with OEMs in the past where windows 8.1 was free for
OEMs if Bing was the default search engine, and $10 otherwise (for tablets).
You could argue they were not a Monopoly on tablets, but it's one indicator.

Another is the recent Google Shopping fight; the "resolution" to that has been
that companies can bid to display their own complete slate of shopping results
and Google Shopping now has separate accounting and must run as a profitable
business unit. Google is still taking most of the ad traffic since it can
afford to bid more than the people who brought the original complaint, but it
does provide a way for entities to be there if they have a business not
predicated on free traffic from commercial search queries.

It's not totally clear that this will be accepted, but if it is, then you
could imagine a similar structural separation argument being used where Search
& Android have separate accounting, Android charges $10 and Google pays phone
makers $10 (the same way they pay Apple). While leaving a path for the status
quo, this would let anyone building a search engine or mobile OS not have to
build both at once to provide a competing alternative.

~~~
detaro
But from my understanding the problem isn't that there's cost to shipping
Google stuff, it's that it's all-or-nothing. Changing the accounting rules
doesn't make much of a difference if the surrounding contracts still prohibit
the OEM from using competing products if they use any of the Google extras.
And if they'd be willing to deviate from that under the alternative model, it
IMHO wouldn't be much different from agreeing now change it.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Well then itemize the things so you can chose what to include with a big
credit if you chose all.

There is almost 2 billion Android phones sold a year. So just a $1 is a lot of
money and then almost all goes to the bottom line.

Part of the problem is Google giving away stuff for free and being different.
Instead just become more traditional and charge people for things.

I hate it as love how much Google gives back but it is clearly hurting them to
give away stuff for free.

------
tomkinson
Android isn't the issue near as much as Google proper. \- One answer seearch
results scraped from sites to be dominant in keeping ppl on Google \- Maps
showing places scraped by Google \- Google results order

These are the real anti-trust cases.

