
EU wants Google to stop anti-competitive Android practices, fine expected - flinner
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-alphabet-antitrust-exclusive-idUKKCN1213DJ
======
sschueller
What about apple? Yes, they don't have the same market share but their product
is completely closed and until recently all other browsers where crippled
compared to the build in one.

All apps must come from the Apple App Store. No 3rd party allowed.

~~~
shagie
Apple isn't forcing OEMs to include their bundled software.

This reads very much like the EU vs. MS for the exact same reasons.

~~~
AsyncAwait
But isn't the deal that you get it for free if you include the software? i.e.
there's an exchange of value there?

I suspect the problem is that there's no "I'll pay you, but not include the
software" option for Android, but couldn't it be applied to any FLOSS as in
"there's no option to pay you, but not contribute back" in the case of the GPL
or even "there's not an option to not buy a Mac with MacOS", or something like
that?

EDIT: If the problem is using Android's dominant position to bundle Google
Search, then I get the similarities to the MS lawsuit, the difference being
that people actually want to use it, which is why I think Google should be
confident about including a "Bing Search" or "Google Search" option, as 99.99%
of people would go with Google, since in Google's case, Search is actually a
product people want to use when compared to the alternatives, whereas Explorer
wasn't in the MS case.

But couldn't this then also be extended to Chrome and Search on the desktop?
i.e. Google used its dominant position in search to push Chrome, (try visiting
google.com with Safari or Firefox, notice the top-right Chrome banner?) and
once they got to a dominant position with Chrome, they used it to further the
dominance of Search, by it being default in Chrome etc.

~~~
johncolanduoni
I don't think the Bing Search option would be sufficient to ward off anti-
trust claims, unless you made Bing search the default or did something crazy
like make phones flip a coin and then decide which search to default to.

~~~
brianwawok
Microsoft never made Google the default search on Windows. Just offered the
option.

~~~
pgeorgi
In current Windows 10 Bing is the only provider for Cortana, which is enabled
by default, both for the conversational interface as well as all shell search
features.

------
bgarbiak
That's a good news. I wish there was an Android phone with, let's say, a
Firefox set as a default browser, and a Google Play Store available. But,
although I'm usually for EU in cases like this, I'm more and more disgruntled
about how ineffective all that after-the-fact fines and penalties are.

Maybe some more strict rules would be better? Like: any OS on sell in UE can
not prohibit installing third party software and tinkering with the hardware,
and the user should be asked about pre-installed software on the first launch.
Something like that. We got browser choice screen in Windows for a while, and
it was good. But it didn't affect iOS, nor Windows 10, nor Android.

~~~
tacomonstrous
You can already set Firefox to be the default browser and disable Chrome on
any Android device.

~~~
Sylos
He's saying preinstalled as the default browser. Not installed and set as
default after the fact by the user. Let manufacturers freely decide what
software they want to bundle.

~~~
zigzigzag
You could make an Android phone that had things like that, and companies have
done so (like Amazon). The downside is then you wouldn't be able to license
the Google services on top.

Android is both open source and expensive to develop. It seems like a
reasonable compromise to me, especially as Google keeps the fragmentation
problem somewhat under control this way.

~~~
stephenr
You call the current situation with android fragmentation "under control"?

The single highest installed version according to Google is 3 major versions
behind and 3 years old.

~~~
zigzigzag
I said "somewhat under control". You aren't qualified to complain about
Android fragmentation unless you've tried to write mobile apps before
Android/iPhone came along. I have. Trust me - no matter how bad you think
Android is, it's much better than the previous state. And a big part of that
is the ecosystem of sticks and carrots Google set up around the open code
base.

~~~
sangnoir
Most folk didn't have to deal with targeting MIDP profiles, J2ME and the
incompatible vendor extensions...

Give me a fragmented Android any day, 1 build will run across all OEMs 99.9%
of the time, rather than 15%

------
Arnt
Quite a few comments, none so far about the matter that's leading to the fine:
Paying manufacturers to preinstall stuff.

~~~
Eridrus
I'm all for antitrust regulators being more active to spur competition, but
this is an odd one. Microsoft certainly pays OEMs to configure Bing, Google &
Yahoo have paid Mozilla to use their search engine. Yahoo pays for crapware to
install their toolbar, often paying malware authors, and yet it's Android that
gets them in a frenzy.

Google clearly has platform power here, but targeting the payments is such an
odd one to me. I can't believe phone manufacturers will be happy about this
either since competing search engines probably won't pay them as much in light
of this.

~~~
cscurmudgeon
Google pays more to Apple to have their search as default than Yahoo pays
Mozilla and Oracle.

Btw, can you point towards Yahoo paying for crapware to be installed?

~~~
Eridrus
Sorry, no references off the top of my head, just seen it first hand when
investigating pay per install networks in desktop crapware. Saw Ask & Yahoo
toolbars getting installed by them, pretty sure that indicated a kickback, but
I didn't care to dig.

------
JustSomeNobody
I don't get this. Sure Android has a greater market share, but people use it
_because_ Google services come with it (and phones tend to be less expensive).
They aren't (at least to my knowledge) doing anything underhanded to keep me
from installing alternatives. I can completely replace all of the default
apps. There is another major platform that doesn't allow for that. Why aren't
they at least being given a warning?

Edit: Disclosure, I use both major platforms.

~~~
jahewson
Google is paying manufacturers to use Google search as the default search
engine and to exclude other search engines. The EU sees Google's dominant
position in mobile OSs being used to bundle their search engine.

It's hard to deny that there's a stinking parallel to Microsoft paying PC
manufacturers to bundle IE and exclude other browsers, which resulted in the
famous anti-trust suit.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
A good parallel is the news that came out just yesterday about Google Home:
Google will forbid anyone who wants to offer Google Cast/Home integrated
devices from offering other digital assistants, like Alexa.

[http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/google-home-amazon-
echo...](http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/google-home-amazon-echo-
chromecast-1201874125/)

------
eth0up
I tried Cyanogenmod for a while and wasn't pleased with the situation of
Android in general, notably the arrangements with Google Play. I used Fdroid
for a bit (which I appreciated), but soon ended up abandoning Android
altogether, for a bundle of reasons.

Here's one of the most relevant perspectives on Google's Android _I 've_ read,
titled _Google 's Iron Grip on Android_:
[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/)

~~~
pitaj
So you just don't use a smartphone anymore? Or do you use an iPhone?

~~~
eth0up
I don't use a smartphone presently, but I also don't need one. I consider both
options equally undesirable and will hold out until a worthy competitor
arrives, or necessity imposes itself. I'm a bit curmudgeonly regarding
technology that sits in my pocket, following me everywhere, handling my data,
and prefer it be subordinate to me - not autonomous, closed and teeming with
third-party interests.

------
Zigurd
First, it would be nice if the currently closed parts of a the Google-logo
Android most OEMs ship were more open. Google's IoT OS is developed in the
open, while AOSP has periodic updates. Parts of Google's suite of services and
apps that are currently for Google-logo OEMs could also be opened without
weakening Google's position with OEMs.

Secondly, it would be nice if there were more smartphone OS choices, like
Jolla, that could prosper alongside the two main choices.

But Google doesn't deserve to get fined for anti-competitive practices.
Amazon's mobile OS drafts off of Google's work on AOSP, and nobody is whining
about that. Yandex announced they would do something similar. Chinese OEMs
have long had their own app stores on Android. In many ways Android is the
basis for open competition in mobile OSs.

If you want something other than the Google ecosystem, you can have it on an
Android OS with all the latest OS technologies. But you have to have your own
credible ecosystem and customer base for it. I'm not sure what the EU wants
that hasn't already been demonstrated can be done in the US, Russia, and
China.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Yandex is behind the Russian case against Google , because OEMs told Yandex
that Google forbid them from working with Yandex. In Russia, Google's already
been ordered to make the changes the EU is demanding here, though there's no
signs Google has complied yet. China only has competition because Google
doesn't operate there. Amazon's Fire Phone shows how successful one can
compete with an international monopoly. None of these are good examples to
defend Google, and in fact, demonstrate why it's so crucial Google be taken
down a peg.

Honestly, they don't deserve a fine, because they can afford it, and it's no
big deal. Google needs to be forcibly broken up into smaller parts, and banned
from colluding with each other. It's time to do to El Goog what the US did to
Ma Bell.

~~~
Zigurd
Regarding "because OEMs told Yandex that Google forbid them from working with
Yandex" that appears to be true. Google forbids OEMs from selling both Google-
logo and other-ecosystem devices. Google's excuse is "anti-fragmentation."
They do this to make OEMs accept Google's decisions about Android, and either
you are in or you are out.

But that's not a high barrier. Amazon's tablets are made by some CM/ODM who
most likely manufactures Android devices for a number of OEMs. Yandex could
have private label phones much the same way. Or they could get phones from
China OEMs that don't care about making Google-logo devices.

The Amazon Fire phone was as much a turkey as Echo is a hit. It wasn't
Google's fault.

As for China, Google does operate there now, and Lenovo sells Google-logo
Androids in China. But the non-Google ecosystems continue.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
The Fire Phone was definitely hugely impacted by not having access to the apps
which only the Play Store has (most of them), and the fact that, specifically,
Google's own apps are only available through them. Who's going to buy a phone
without YouTube? Similarly, if you look at reviews of Windows Phone, most are
very positive, with one exception: Without Google providing good support for
the platform, people don't want to use it. Google's monopolies span far and
wide, and it's difficult for anyone in the tech industry Google refuses to
work with.

As far as the Echo... Google hasn't even released Google Home yet, and they're
already telling manufacturers they're going to have to choose between
supporting Alexa and supporting Google Home.

If China has Google now, it's still not a huge problem: Lenovo is only a small
part of the market share there, and most importantly: All of the apps popular
in China are already available in other stores. Maybe we should ban the Play
Store for a few years in the US until the same situation happens here?

~~~
Zigurd
I bought a Fire tablet without YouTube. Amazon has their own media ecosystem.
Almost all the mass-market apps I use are available on the Amazon app store.
Even Netflix.

I would, however, agree that it is petty, pointless, and possibly
counterproductive for Google not to put apps that use the Google ecosystem on
Amazon's app store.

As far as what the Fire phone was missing? I'd say maps and navigation. They
should have gotten HERE on board at launch.

------
BurningFrog
All these arbitrary fines handed out without trials looks a lot like taxation
by fiat to this cynic.

~~~
Freestyler_3
A fine is given and then the company can respond by going to court.

It works like traffic law, you receive a fine and if you disagree then you can
go to court.

------
im3s
Personally, I think that users would just install Google themselves if it
isn't pre-installed.

~~~
tdkl
Would they install all the of the Gapps if most of the apps would:

\- be available on other app stores,

\- apps wouldn't require Google Play Services?

~~~
CalRobert
I was just trying to get rid of play music and play newsstand yesterday. Most
of the stuff they include is wasted space. It's particularly frustrating since
I'm always running out of internal storage and most apps are difficult to put
on the SD card.

------
mtgx
Has the EU even addressed the issue where Google bans all ad-blocking apps
from its store? Seems like a pretty open and shut "we're doing this because we
have near-monopoly on the smartphone market and ad-blocking hurts our
business" anti-trust case.

~~~
muninn_
Do they?

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.adblockplu...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.adblockplus.browser&hl=en)

I don't use Android (nor any Google product besides search) but I'm pretty
sure you can get ad blockers on Android.

~~~
anonymousab
They block applications that interfere with the operation of other
applications.

This would include an ad blocker that blocks ads in, say, a free game, or the
built in Chrome browser.

The common workaround was to run connections through a VPN and your ad
blocking happens there. I'm not sure if they started cracking down on that as
well.

Having apps that modify other apps can certainly be desired behavior, but it's
clear why there would be legitimate concerns about customer security in
allowing apps that can do so.

~~~
ethanbond
So... why is it possible?

~~~
tarancato
There are three approaches:

1\. Create a browser with ad blocking builtin or possible with addons (like
Firefox).

2\. Create a local proxy that blocks ads, and make the user configure it as
the system proxy.

3\. Require root privileges and do whatever you want (2, or maybe change
/etc/hosts, like AdAway does). Yes, there are tons of apps in the Play Store
that only work with root. Google never cared much about them.

------
libeclipse
I completely disagree with this. Google is too lax about what it allows and
doesn't allow on Android. It could easily restrict 3rd party companies like
AT&T and EE etc from pre-loading their bloatware as system apps, but it
doesn't. Google's apps are, in my opinion, excellent, and it's their operating
system. They should be able to put whatever they want on it, just like apple
can put whatever they want on iPhones and Microsoft can put whatever they want
on theirs.

------
edderly
There's a dark or a bright side to this.

On the one hand you wonder whether Google will get in a huff and close AOSP
(The Android Open Source Project) just to work with a few commercial vendors.
They can leave the complainants to work together on an fork where they can do
what they wish.

Or, which I hope they would do by now, actually run AOSP like a true open
source project.

In the latter case I think the strategy that they've used so far "was" the
right one (open source but not open for debate), however Android is now mature
enough that I think developing a true open source community would benefit it.

------
dogma1138
There are plenty of android devices that are sold in emerging markets that do
not come with the Play store.

Africa, China and India are doing it.

Nothing prevents vendors from selling devices without the Play store, and some
devices like Samsung ones come with their own App Store in addition to Google
Play.

Nokia also had a close store.

Also you can side load apps on android devices without rooting them.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
So, take your phone without the Play Store, and get the apps that people in
the US or the EU want. You'll find almost none of the apps users want are
available without Google Play. And most of them won't even run without Play
Services even if you sideload them.

Basically, what Google did gradually over the last few years, is fork Android.
The APIs developers are encouraged to build their apps on are all proprietary,
to ensure that their apps are also tied to the Google ecosystem.

------
elcct
So much for the free market. All the EU socialists must have a hard on right
now. In the end fine will be paid by the consumers anyway, and will have to
click more to install Google apps and additionally pay for bandwidth. But hey,
those lunatics will be happy they solved another "problem".

~~~
coldtea
> _So much for the free market._

You seem confused. The free market is that where monopolies don't bully to
limit choice (and thus freedom).

~~~
necessity
Who is Google bullying and how?

>Google to stop paying financial incentives to smartphone makers to pre-
install Google Search

Is Firefox bullying other search engines by having a default search engine on
their browser?

The only thing limiting choice and freedom is the EU decision.

~~~
coldtea
> _Is Firefox bullying other search engines by having a default search engine
> on their browser?_

Firefox is not a monopoly, so that's a moot point.

~~~
elcct
Are you saying you cannot install software on Android other than from Google?

~~~
coldtea
No, I'm saying Android controls the vast majority of the smartphone market.

------
venomsnake
Leave google alone and break thr walls of apple's garden. They are worse.

