
Google faces Russia Android probe after Yandex protest - funkylexoo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31519068
======
DCKing
What are they talking about, exactly? It's perfectly possible to "unbundle"
Android and Google's services. Google goes furthest in unbundling
possibilities for any popular operating system, since they give away the
source code for the operating system to be freely modified and be bundled with
other cloud services. Amazon, Microsoft+Nokia (Bing) and many Chinese
smartphone vendors (Baidu mostly) have all shown that this is possible. People
pretend that Android without Google Play Services is somehow worthless or
necessarily incomplete, which I don't agree with in the slightest.

It seems to me that what they're talking about is actually that Google's cloud
services package bundles default Google Search, and Google does not provide
the user or vendors with enough flexibility here. Okay, I'll definitely grant
them that. So they want to use Google's cloud infrastructure selectively for
the Play Store, but not for other profitable and integrated cloud services?
Sounds a bit like eating your cake and having it too. If you look at this way,
it doesn't seem such a reasonable request, although I guess it would be better
for the market if Google was forced to give in.

~~~
solve
The non-free Google Play APIs, which are heavily used by many Android apps.
This makes it a real pain to run popular Android apps on Blackberry, for
example. So in practice, very few users do.

Edit: Warning - lots of downvotes in this thread, seemingly for any Google
critical comments.

~~~
DCKing
> The non-free Google Play APIs, which are heavily used by many Android apps.

I think this is an exaggeration. Some developers make too many assumptions,
sure, but I don't think you'll find many high-profile non-Google apps that
don't run on a Kindle Fire tablet for this reason.

EDIT: People seem to think that Google Services contain the bread and butter
of the Android OS, but if you look at what APIs are actually provided by them
[1], it doesn't contain anything that is not a client of Google's cloud
services.

[1]:
[http://developer.android.com/google/index.html](http://developer.android.com/google/index.html)

~~~
kuschku
Even OpenGL extensions are now only available through the Google Play API. It
is NOT an exaggeration.

~~~
DCKing
I think you misinterpreted some of Google's documentation here, or are
deliberately FUD'ing. You made me look around in Android's documentation and
the web and I did not find anything about this. Care to share a link?

------
Zigurd
This complaint is a narrow one: It is focused on the requirement to make
Google's apps the default apps. In that it is similar to the Microsoft case
where Microsoft was forced to provide a selection of browsers on installation.
So it isn't as ridiculous as some here have claimed, and it is possible Google
and/or the OEMs selling in Russia will be forced to make some accommodation or
exit the market.

This wasn't always a requirement if you remember that terrible Verizon phone
with Bing as the default (and impossible to change) search engine.

The question is whether Yandex can make a case for Android as a monopoly, and
whether the choice of making an AOSP-based Android variant with a Yandex
ecosystem isn't enough relief from such a supposed monopoly.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>> This complaint is a narrow one

While this is true, the implications could be far reaching for companies here
in the US

Since Apple has instituted their "walled Garden" approach to all their
software and now Microsoft is doing the same with their software, it would
open the door for more litigation against both companies as "monopolistic" if
Yandex were to prove its case against Android.

The interesting question then becomes, if "monopoly" means not having choices
once you've selected a company's OS (meaning you have to use their apps, their
browser, their API's), or is it irrelevant since you do have a "choice" to go
with whatever OS you want to use to begin with?

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I think the walled garden approach that Apple, Google, and Microsoft all
ascribe to is definitely anti-competitive at it's core, and I truly hope more
governments will start addressing it as such.

~~~
Oletros
What walled garden does have Android?

You can change almost any default program, use alternative stores or sideload
applications

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Google Play/Apps. They're pushing more and more apps to be dependent on "Play
Services", which is a monolithic Google cloud data platform. It ensures a
large percentage of appealing apps are dependent on Google's platform, rather
than the open source Android OS. Furthermore, the use of the MARA contract
forbids OEMs from introducing any viable competitors into the market.

~~~
Oletros
I repeat, what walled garden when it is not forbidden change or install
anything on an Android device.

And still waiting any single proof of that MADA restrictions. perhaps you
don't find them because you even can't spell it right.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
MADA restrictions mandate Google Search be the default search provider, and
that the long press on the center button goes to Google Search. And that over
20 apps must be preinstalled with a Google folder on the home screen with many
of them in it. Ensuring every device must be sold with very prominent
advertising of Google services.

This creates a very chilling effect on the ability for competitors to land on
the platform, as at best, they'll be an unwanted second service on the device.

~~~
Oletros
It seems that you learned the word MADA and you have to repeat in every post.

Do you have problems understanding what a walled garden is?

------
diyorgasms
Off topic, but I am curious. To any Russian readers, how does Yandex hold up
to Google for Russian users? Does it provide an experience better than Google
in some way? Do people use it simply because it is domestic? Is it similar to
Baidu in that it is a means of controlling the flow of information?

~~~
Oleg2tor
As far as i know Google beats Yandex in search (readed about this here
[http://habrahabr.ru/post/173351/](http://habrahabr.ru/post/173351/)). But
Yandex got more detailed maps (google missed some objects / buildings). Yandex
got Taxi app, public transport app, navigator, metrika (google analytics copy)
and etc, etc, etc. For me as developer - yandex provides much better api
documentation and examples.

But I can't understand - how can they force monopoly protest, being
monopolists itself? Example - Only Yandex.Transport got API for public data
(bus stops, Position Tracking) in Moscow. I am sure, that Google can protest
them back. How Yandex had the nerve for this? Nothing personal, business only?

P.S. All above is about Russia context. In USA I don't know which maps are
more detailed.

~~~
bobuk
Yandex.Transport bought an access to API for positioning, but it's not
exclusive. Everyone, including you can buy this access too, it's not very
expensive.

~~~
Oleg2tor
So, where I can get those API? Can you get me link or something?

------
ogurechny
Last year, Yandex had to fight against government attention to its news
aggregating service (that has a significant share of user traffic and ranges
sources automatically by quality instead of closeness to official propaganda).
_Rumor has it (and I may be totally making things up)_ that Google conveyed an
idea or two to the originators of the those censorship law proposals that were
supposed to make Yandex manually filter “extremism” from news pages. Because
Google doesn't have Russian offices anymore, idiotic government initiatives
harm it much less than they harm Yandex.

------
Animats
Under US antitrust law, that's a tie-in sale.

------
podgib
I'm surprised there haven't been more lawsuits like this. I expect we'll see
more suits like this, plus some about bundling of Chrome, and even about
making Google the default search engine in Chrome.

~~~
daddykotex
What I can't understand from this is why would there be a lawsuit about the
default search engine in a browser built by a search engine company?

If you install Google Chrome, you do it voluntarily. It's not like the browser
was forced up on you. I do understand why they sue for Android issue, as it is
quite hard to find a good phone, running Android, that is not bundled with all
the Google services.

~~~
legohead
Chrome comes pre-installed as of 4.1 -- so with that mind, it is anti-
competitive. MS got in big trouble for doing pretty much the same thing.

I don't think the old browser is even available on the newer versions.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Chrome comes pre-installed as of 4.1 -- so with that mind, it is anti-
> competitive. MS got in big trouble for doing pretty much the same thing.

No, they didn't. Bundling IE with Windows was one component of a wider pattern
of behavior which, _as a whole_ , Microsoft got in trouble for. They didn't
get in trouble for pre-installing IE alone.

~~~
legohead
Fact: They got in trouble for the bundling of IE.

Yes, the case was bigger than just that, but now you are just nitpicking my
comment.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Fact: They got in trouble for the bundling of IE.

Fact: They were charged with illegally maintaining their existing PC desktop
operating system market by, among other means, tieing IE to Windows _in
response to a perceived threat that a competitive internet browser market on
desktop OS 's would undermine its desktop OS monopoly_, and simultaneously for
attempting to monopolize the internet browser market _by_ leveraging their
existing Windows desktop OS monopoly through tieing IE to Windows. On both
sides, the relation to the Windows monopoly was a key element of why they got
in trouble.

They didn't get in trouble for bundling IE except in the sense that someone
who gets a jaywalking ticket gets in trouble for walking.

------
ocdtrekkie
Heh, gotta love the folks downvoting anyone who criticizes Google. ;) Real
classy, folks.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
And for the appropriate meta: Folks who downvote anyone who points out they're
downvoting people for criticizing Google. ;)

------
alphadevx
> act after three electronics comapnies

Don't often spot spelling mistakes like that on the mighty Beeb, tut tut etc.

------
dschiptsov
So they want to quietly hijack the setting, the way all the fucking windows
crap does, to redirect the traffic, and when it fails they complained about
unfairness?

How about writing your own OS and creating an ecosystem for hardware vendors
and developers first?

~~~
oddx
> How about writing your own OS and creating an ecosystem for hardware vendors
> and developers first?

I think it would be better for society if smaller companies will be able
compete with monopoly without requirement to spend billions.

~~~
dschiptsov
Is it a news that corporations are creating "ecosystems" to make money, not to
benefit third-parties?

What if something wrong with the "strategy" of being able to be a very
successful third party in someone's else ecosystem?

Google is no monopoly. There is windows mobile, of course.

~~~
oddx
> Is it a news that corporations are creating "ecosystems" to make money, not
> to benefit third-parties?

Corporations do their job to make money of course, but it's better to limit
harm they can create when making money. Regulations are productive in many
ways including regulation of possibility to destroy or significantly limit
competitors and competition.

> What if something wrong with the "strategy" of being able to be a very
> successful third party in someone's else ecosystem?

Nothing wrong with it. The problem is that ecosystem owner can significantly
limit competitors.

> Google is no monopoly. There is windows mobile, of course.

Strictly speaking yes, it isn't monopoly, but it is close enough to it, so it
can use his position to harm competition.

~~~
dschiptsov
This is very good rhetoric. I really appreciate.

How, how does "significantly limit competitors" relate to the requirement to
make an explicit, conscious choice by the user instead of allowing a quiet
change of device settings?

Not allowing any third-party search apps or not allowing to change the default
app by the user could be _considered_ as a "significant limit", but there is
no such restrictions.

~~~
oddx
Competition can be limited not only in "hard" way (like not allowing any
third-party apps), but also in many "soft" ways.

Google uses his position to set default options for apps and this mean he gets
all "unconscious" (and too lazy) users. This is unfair (not backed by any real
superiority of his apps) advantage. Yandex tries to change default options for
some vendors and Google again uses his position to limit it (limit
competition). I'm totally for users making conscious choice, but with status
quo it is unconscious choice and skewed in the way that gives Google unfair
advantage.

In generally this Yandex vs Google reminds me AMD vs Intel case [1] when Intel
used his better position to limit competitor without having real superiority.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp).

~~~
dschiptsov
Should everyone in the market, including malicious vendors, have the ability
"to change default options", or this is only for Yandex?

I am sorry, but Yandex is by no means AMD. It is ridiculous to suggest that
Yandex "is second only to Google".

------
blfr
This should probably be viewed as an extension of the Ukrainian conflict.
Everything else is garnish.

~~~
vbezhenar
I don't think so. Yandex is very neutral company in that regard. They have
Ukrainian office with developers. For Ukrainian users they show Crimea
belonging to the Ukraine when browsing from maps.yandex.ua. You can check it
yourself, compare maps.yandex.ua and maps.yandex.ru.

~~~
dreamweapon
If they had balls, they'd show it as belonging to Ukraine -- or at least as
disputed -- on both maps.

~~~
vetinari
Google does exactly the same thing.

Currently I'm in a country that didn't recognize Kosovo independence and
Google shows it as disputed territory, otherwise part of Serbia. Exactly the
same way for Crimea and Ukraine.

It is neither of these companies job to take sides. The simplest way is to
show to each party what they want to see.

~~~
dreamweapon
Google apparently shows Kosovo as a disputed region in the U.S., as well
(demarcated by a dashed, rather than by a solid line). Ditto for the Crimea.

------
staunch
Google didn't set out to be evil. They just discovered, like Microsoft, that
monopoly levels of domination are like the One Ring.

Bill Gates is Frodo. Larry Page is Bilbo.

~~~
icehawk219
There's also something to be said about the margins realized by being a
monopoly. There's a reason you see fewer companies in cut-throat industries
doing stuff like Microsoft Research or Google X. Research is expensive and
that means you need big profits to support it and having a monopoly is a great
way to guarantee big profits.

