
Android has created more choice, not less - coollog
https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/android-has-created-more-choice-not-less/
======
mhkool
Sundar Pichai is missing the point: a monopolist is not allowed to abuse its
position to enforce products and severly reduce choice. Sundar appears not to
remember that Microsoft was fined many years ago since it forced Internet
Explorer with its Operating System. Also Google must obey the law. So stop
crying, pay the fine and think carefully before abusing your power again.

~~~
colxi
There is a little detail to consider that makes an important difference :

Windows 10 Home : $119.99

Android : 0$

------
slededit
Monopolists always have this response. Bell said similar things before their
breakup - that their scale allowed them to provide a standard of service and
price point otherwise impossible. History has repeatedly shown that its not
true.

~~~
tyler_larson
The thing is, in this case we HAVE a solid pictures of every alternative.
There's no speculation necessary. We have the "before" and "after" story to
point to, and we even have the "alternate universe" story along with it.

Before Android and iOS, the phone ecosystem was pretty mature already. There
was more os-level diversity but a lot less choice. It was just half a dozen
utterly crappy worlds of lock-in, with barriers to entry that kept newcomers
strictly out, and removed any hint of incentive for the incumbents to improve
their platform. Remember everything was SO BAD that blackberry actually looked
good in comparison? It was practically a parody of monopolistic inflexibility.
Regardless of platform, everyone universally hated their phone with such
passion that it was a meme in its own right.

Google and Apple both poured a boatload of money into each making a phone
platform people would actually like to use. That alone was revolutionary. But
each company showed their philosophy in how they presented it:

In the Apple case, the iPhone was shiny and proprietary and carefully
presented and DONT TOUCH THAT. You couldn't even write apps for it. You could
have web pages, that was enough for you.

In the Google case, Android was open and messy and unconstrained. It wasn't
locked down an any meaningful sense; Google originally just kept some basic
control of their branding and their marketplace. But without rules, carriers
went back to their old tricks, and the ecosystem started to crumble. Remember
that almost nobody but Google ever ships "Android", every carrier and
manufacturer ships their own _fork_ of Android. And for a long while they were
all pretty bloody awful as everyone in the supply chain tried to extract value
with preloaded apps, ads, lock-in features, crap hardware, and egregious
branding. So using their only leverage (the play store), Google has slowly and
carefully been pulling Android back from the brink.

Ironically, sadly, it's exactly these actions Google took to save Android that
the EU objects to. They can't see (they refuse to see) the whole picture; they
just see the tiny bits they think are relevant. They're like a nearsighted
sleuth who finds blood on the floor in a hospital, and arrests the first nurse
they see for the murder of persons unspecified. Whatever you say of the
evidence they found, they clearly don't even begin to understand the
environment.

As for the two companies and their strategies: For Apple, their phone very
literally saved the company from demise. They make so much money from selling
iPhone hardware that nothing else they do is even important. For Google, going
the "open" route with Android wasn't the strategic commercial miracle we like
to pretend. But if (and only if) you look at Android as an investment in the
future of their Search business, then you can justify the ongoing expense. If
you think of how much money it _could_ cost Google in ads revenue to have
Apple or Amazon monopolize and manipulate the market, now you've got something
huge.

Android can't survive on its own. There's nothing even there to survive; it's
not a business. But it can be part of the search and ads business. That's
where it can find a niche.

Remember that Android was, and remains today, the _ONLY_ successful open-
source consumer operating system, ever. There isn't even a runner-up. Nothing.
This is not a business model with legs.

~~~
slededit
Monopolists have always made the world better initially. Its how they got to
be dominant in the first place. In the case of Rockefeller he truly thought he
was doing God's work - before him lamp oil was expensive and unsafe. More
often than not it burned your house down.

The problem is that without competition stagnation is inevitable.

------
mankash666
Give the EU what it really really wants. In response to the three charges [1],
if you apply the business formula of the other player (Apple) in the market,
implications on choice and freedom really do unfurl. So here is the counter to
the three chargers:

Charge 1: requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google search - Do what Apple
does, accept payment from 3rd parties on being the search provider. MSFT pays
billions for the privilege of being a search engine to Apple.

Charge 2: __preventing smartphone manufacturers from running competing systems
that had not been approved by Google __\- Amazon ships hundreds of millions of
Android devices that use non of Google 's services. Not only is this charge
disingenuous, but technically inaccurate. Unlike iOS, Android allows side-
loading apps, which has NOTHING to do with the play store. I wonder if they
like the way Apple cock blocks choice in apps. by rejecting competing services
and apps from the app store, purposefully withholding iOS safari from W3C
approved standards to drive developers to the app-store, and disallowing
sideloading. Is _that_ freedom?

Charge 3: __Google was found to have denied consumers choice by paying
manufacturers and mobile phone operators to pre-install Google Search __\-
Much like MSFT paying for Bing on iOS. Sham charge.

In conclusion, what the EU _really_ wants is an Apple model . Google should
stop licensing Android to manufacturers in the EU (like Apple), make it closed
source (like apple), kill sideloading apps (like apple), with-hold browser
compatibility on W3C standards (like Apple), and slap a minimum price tag of
$1200 on Pixel phones

What a sham

[1]: [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/18/google-
face...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/18/google-faces-record-
multibillion-fine-from-eu-over-android)

~~~
m-p-3
The issue here > Amazon ships hundreds of millions of Android devices that use
non of Google's services. isn't that they cannot do it, it's that if they do
ship their own device stripped of Google softwares, they cannot ship other
devices they made themselves that are certified.

It's either one or the other. For Amazon it's a choice they can live with. Not
so much for the average phone manufacturers, as choosing not to ship devices
with Google apps would severely limit their marketshare.

This is the major issue, manufacturers should be able to do both if they want
without blacklisting themselves from Google.

------
volfied
That GIF is incredibly misleading. It's not about hiding the app from home
screen, it's about uninstalling it and not having it run in the background.

~~~
tyler_larson
No, it's functionally equivalent to uninstalling; the only difference is that
since the app was installed on a read-only filesystem, the apk can't be
deleted. But it's gone as far as the OS cares; it can't be seen or used or run
(even in the background) unless the user manually re-activates it.

Android added this capability specifically so that users can remove anything
that's pre-loaded, regardless of what any company wants. There's no iOS
equivalent because Apple doesn't want to to remove their stuff.

------
eithe
I'm hopeful that very same will happen to Apple

------
1996
Stop complaining like a crybaby when you are found guilty, or you will look
like Microsoft in the 90s

