
Google's Answer to EU Antitrust Complaints on Android - Aissen
http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2016/04/androids-model-of-open-innovation.html
======
thedevil
On the one hand, Google using it's app store advantage to strengthen search
seems to me like it might be a monopoly abuse.

On the other hand, Google gave away an OS and built a whole ecosystem to
protect their search (to the benefit of consumers). Consumers are actually
winning from the arrangement (and aren't anti-trust laws supposed to protect
consumers?). The losers are corporations that are less generous and less
innovative than Google.

Since I'm a consumer, and not Yandex or Microsoft, I'm cheering for Google.

~~~
outside1234
The problem with that is that it is a self perpetuating cycle and that the
current situation is only better for consumers in the short run.

Google is better because they have more data from consumers, which gets them
more installs, which makes them better.

It would be better in the long run for consumers if there is a real credible
second source of search, since it keeps both parties honest and competing on
the quality of the results -- and stuff like pushing your own sites doesn't
start to creep in.

~~~
sangnoir
> The problem with that is that it is a self perpetuating cycle and that the
> current situation is only better for consumers in the short run

The "short run" is typically the scope relevant to laws and regulations, for
good or for bad.

------
ninedays
>Any manufacturer can then choose to load the suite of Google apps to their
device and freely add other apps as well.

"Choose" is probably not the right word here.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Exactly. If you don't sign Google's agreement and include Google's app bundle,
your product fails in the market. You cannot successfully sell an Android
smartphone today without Google Apps, unless you're in China where Google Apps
isn't available.

~~~
wstrange
In other words, consumers really like Google Apps, and the alternative apps
are not desirable.

What can Google do about that?

~~~
gambiting
Give away their apps for free without any agreements, apparently. It's like
trying to force Tesla to give everyone their motors, because customers want
Tesla motors but can't get them without buying a product from Tesla -
therefore Tesla should be forced to let other other companies build cars with
their motors /s.

~~~
NetStrikeForce
People liked IE. Not everyone and not forever, but people really liked it. We
all know how did that end.

As an Android user, I couldn't give less fucks about G+, Hangouts, Music,
Books, Sheets, Docs and probably some other me-too product launched by Google
and still I have them installed in my phone and Google keeps trying to shove
them down my throat. I don't need any of these for the Play store to work,
that is the only place I can install software from unless I downgrade my
phone's security, but apparently you imply I do.

Also, Tesla is not a de-facto monopoly on several European markets, which is
the problem here.

If Apple or Microsoft had >80% of the market and provided the OS needed by
every manufacturer (but two), then they could face similar issues.

~~~
soylentcola
I'm curious how you'd be downgrading your phone's security by installing
software from a different app store or repository (or even just directly
downloading it from the developer and installing it).

The way I look at it, the base Android OS is free to port to whatever you
want/can but to get some commercial Google products like the Play Store and
some of their apps, you need to follow some other terms that allow them to
make money from these commercial offerings.

Either way, I find it much easier to run a Google-less Android than an Apple-
less iOS and somewhat easier than a MS-less Windows. The fact that I _don 't_
have to "jailbreak" or otherwise exploit security holes to install software
from other sources than the OS maker is a big reason I tend to use Android on
mobile devices.

~~~
NetStrikeForce
> I'm curious how you'd be downgrading your phone's security by installing
> software from a different app store or repository (or even just directly
> downloading it from the developer and installing it).

I have to enable "install software from other sources", which opens the door
to ANY source other than the Play store. I've got the Amazon App Store on my
phone too, and for that to work I have to permit installation from any source.
That's downgrading my phone's security.

> Either way, I find it much easier to run a Google-less Android than an
> Apple-less iOS and somewhat easier than a MS-less Windows. The fact that I
> don't have to "jailbreak" or otherwise exploit security holes to install
> software from other sources than the OS maker is a big reason I tend to use
> Android on mobile devices.

That is true. The difference is most probably the market share and how the OS
is licensed to hardware OEMs (iOS is not licensed - Windows Phone I've no
idea).

~~~
tdkl
> I have to enable "install software from other sources", which opens the door
> to ANY source other than the Play store.

You still have to click the .apk and install it. Same as clicking an .exe and
installing it on Windows.

Why would a "Store" made by Joe Random be more secure then downloading an .apk
and installing it ?

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Amazon is not "Joe Random".

------
JamesBaxter
I'm not smart enough to know whether Google is breaking antitrust rules or not
but if they are I don't see how Apple aren't too.

~~~
pmontra
Because Apple builds its own phones and nobody else can use iOS. Google
wouldn't be subject to this investigation if it didn't licence Android. If it
built its own Nexus phones they would be in the same position Apple is.
Instead it's in the position Microsoft was in the 90's.

~~~
JamesBaxter
So if Google were less open then they wouldn't have to deal with this?

~~~
unlinker
Licencing an OS is being open? Because, remember, on (for example) a Samsung
mobile only the Android frameworks and the kernel are open. The rest,
including kernel drivers (SoC, etc), built-in apps, the Google frameworks and
apps, etc are completely closed.

------
jfuhrman
> In order to get the Play Store, an OEM has to agree to install all the other
> ‘required’ Google apps including Google Voice Search, Gmail, Google
> Calendar, Google Talk (now Hangouts), Google Maps and so on.

>The most important clause states that "Devices may only be distributed if all
Google Applications... are pre-installed on the Device." Google apps are an
all-or-nothing affair. If you want Google Maps or the Play Store, you must
also take things like Google+ and Google's network location provider.

~~~
deelowe
You do realize though, there's an intentional segregation there. Android is
not the play store or any of those apps. Not at this point. Android is that OS
itself and just the OS. If antitrust is an issue, then the case needs to be
made against the distribution of apps that require licensing (google's apps
and the store), not against android itself, which is fairly unrestricted.

~~~
scholia
_> Android is that OS itself and just the OS._

Actually, Android is a Google trademark and you have to do what Google says if
you want to use it.

Amazon uses AOSP but it can't call it Android.

This makes sense. Anyone could take AOSP and make it incompatible with Android
(TM). If they could call it Android, that would mislead consumers.

The problem is that if you ship a single Android phone with Play etc, you are
not allowed to ship any phones based on AOSP. In fact, Google just made Acer
cancel the launch of an AOSP phone aimed at the Chinese market because it is
already shipping genuine Android (TM).

This is not "fairly unrestricted" ;-)

------
tacos
There comes a time when the only competition for a massive corporation is
governments. And you can't win that one (AT&T) even when you do (Microsoft).

Tread carefully Google (and Apple...)

------
b101010
Some of the commissions objections are outlined here, does anyone have a
better source?

[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-1492_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-1492_en.htm)

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

------
buro9
Uh-oh.

Google don't understand the EU if they believe that the way to fight the EU is
to use a press release.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
So far, Google's way of fighting antitrust suits has been to pretty much claim
that the government is wrong and then not change anything. Some countries
where Google doesn't like the results of a government ruling, they've just
left or closed the relevant service. Google seems to have a questionable
understanding that they're supposed to comply with the law.

But I'm not sure they can afford to lose the whole EU market.

~~~
Oletros
> Some countries where Google doesn't like the results of a government ruling,
> they've just left or closed the relevant service.

Apart of Spain with Google News, and it was a law that was criticized by
everyone but the big newspapers can you give us examples of Google closing
services when they "don't like the result"?

~~~
NetStrikeForce
In Germany they were going down the same route as in Spain, but finally
reached an agreement.

~~~
Oletros
No, in Germany they complied with the law, they didn't pull off the service

~~~
NetStrikeForce
I don't know why would you say that, but that was pretty much a win for Google
and not a defeat:

[http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/5/7160587/german-
publisher-a...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/5/7160587/german-publisher-
axel-springer-google-news) [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-axel-
sprngr-idUSKBN...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-axel-sprngr-
idUSKBN0IP1YT20141105)

If you have any evidence that Google is paying that "tax", please show it.

~~~
Oletros
I didn't said that Google paid the tax or that Google lost. IO said that
Google didn't pulled off the service from Germany. They complied with the law
and didn't put snippets

------
jboydyhacker
I can see arguments around Google Search impacting multiple startups and
businesses of all kinds. Startups, carriers or whoever.

However, try making Google Maps your default map provider on Apple - or
Chrome...

Very hard to make a case it's practice in apps in general is an issue here.

~~~
7Z7
If Android is the dominant OS (80%? of smartphones) do iOS apps have a
significant impact on what Google's Apps are doing in general?

*Though I guess the fact that the Google apps are not on 100% of Android installs affects that number again.

~~~
jboydyhacker
There are just two players in the market and the business practices of both
should be used to determine what is common practice or anticompetitive.

Google started just a few years ago way behind ios. It got the share because
of improvements in services - maps, mail, browser, notificaitons, and it’s OS.
Apple has had a far more closed system around it’s default apps. While Apple’s
apps have gotten shitter, Google’s default apps have gotten better.

I’d argue not the place to hit them. Focus the investigation on search- narrow
the scope to that. They’ve got like 5 pending cases and it’s coming off as
trying to stop US tech from “encroaching” on established EU businesses.

As a guy whose had to raise money- I get the “Google” question in almost every
pitch. So I get there is an issue around search- but fuck their apps are good.
I wish Apple would be forced to swap them out like Google Allows.

