
Complying with the EC’s Android decision - ucaetano
https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/complying-ecs-android-decision/
======
zokier
Well, that's big fat middle finger towards EC. Because the permission to use
forked Android is limited to EEA, no manufacturer is going to use that and
lock themselves out of the rest of the world. But the real punch comes here:

> we will introduce a new paid licensing agreement for smartphones and tablets
> shipped into the EEA

While it is bit vague, it certainly sounds like Google will be levying "EC
stupidity tax" for all EEA devices.

So congratulations EC, you accomplished exactly nothing but making devices
more expensive in your market and padding Googles pockets even more.

~~~
Reelin
I hadn't really been following this previously, but I did glance at the
official EC press release just now ([http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-4581_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-4581_en.htm)). From that document:

* has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);

* made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and

* has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").

That last one in particular sounds quite abusive to me, given that I'm a fan
of FOSS.

> it certainly sounds like Google will be levying "EC stupidity tax" for all
> EEA devices

Is it really stupidity to attempt to prevent a large international corporation
from abusing its market dominance? Or are you perhaps suggesting that the EC
should have backed down in order to avoid being bullied by Google?

~~~
zokier
> Is it really stupidity to attempt to prevent a large international
> corporation from abusing its market dominance

It is stupidity to attempt _and fail so spectacularly_

~~~
Reelin
So what are they supposed to do then? Just pretend nothing is wrong?! This may
raise prices somewhat in the short term, but hopefully it will curb this kind
of behavior in the long term.

~~~
zdragnar
I'm not following your logic. How will fatter margins for Google lead to less
of this behavior?

~~~
Reelin
> How will fatter margins for Google lead to less of this behavior?

I never claimed that Google would have larger margins, nor do I agree with
that assumption.

First, the behavior in question. They abused their market dominance to force
other companies to do things which were advantageous for them. They have been
fined for it, have officially announced that they will no longer be doing it,
and if they were ever to resume would presumably face further very steep
fines. Moreover, this turn of events will hopefully give pause to anyone
thinking to emulate their strategy in the future. Regardless of what happens
to their margins going forward, there will almost certainly be less of this
behavior.

More than that though, your assumption that their margins will increase
doesn't make very much sense. If that were the case, why didn't they pursue
this sort of licensing scheme previously? The obvious answer is that in their
best estimate the new way of doing things will actually hurt their margins.
Presumably driving users to their services was worth more than charging a
licensing fee to offset the cost of developing GApps, as they make money off
of user data. It also had the bonus of preventing any meaningful competition
from developing - their search engine was installed by default (minimizes
competition), their software was installed by default (minimizes competition),
and you couldn't charge a licensing fee for a competing suite of software
because their price (free) would always substantially undercut yours.

Even if you did somehow find a way to compete on the software front, you
couldn't do business with any of the major manufactures. If they went with
your software instead of Google's on _any_ of their devices they could no
longer license GApps _at all_. Ending their abusive licensing practices opens
the door to companies offering devices with an Android fork if that makes
sense for them. Importantly, it means that a top tier manufacture can now
continue to offer official Android devices with GApps while also trying out a
competing (unofficial) design. So yes, prices may go up in the short or even
long term, but nonetheless Google's margins will likely be damaged.

------
Nomentatus
More recent articles: [http://fortune.com/2018/10/17/google-eu-android-
antitrust-ma...](http://fortune.com/2018/10/17/google-eu-android-antitrust-
manufacturers/)

See also: [https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-
andro...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/16/17984074/google-eu-andro..).

The latter fumbles breaking down what parts "Android" has, neglecting the Java
Virtual Machine, and thus most of the OS.

------
mcphage
> We believe that Android has created more choice, not less.

More choice in what? Definitely not more choice in mobile Operating Systems.

~~~
Nomentatus
They are weaseling: they mean more choice than Apple-thats-it, which was
briefly the case. Having to refer to so ancient and obsolete a virtue is
damning in itself, I agree.

