
Google Shuts Out Competitors on Android? Hardly - panarky
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/technology/android-faces-monopoly-claims-as-its-users-tackle-an-abundance-of-choices.html
======
_stephan
An alternate point of view by the Economist:
[http://www.economist.com/news/business/21697193-european-
com...](http://www.economist.com/news/business/21697193-european-commission-
going-after-google-againthis-time-better-chance)

~~~
bduerst
Tl;dr: Android is open sourced, Google Play services are not. Licenses for
manufacturers to preinstall the proprietary Google Play app require them to
also to preinstall Google search.

Android manufacturers aren't forced to preinstall Play services. Users can
still uninstall either Play, search, or any number of the preinstalled
manufacturer apps (which aren't locked by manufacturers), right? How is this
different than if Google made just one app for play _and_ search?

~~~
_stephan
The legal question is whether the exclusivity terms in the licensing deals are
anti-competitive given Google's dominant market share in Europe.

"handset-makers that wish to pre-install Google Play must, among other apps,
also add Google Search and make it the device’s default search service; if
they want to share in Google’s ad revenues they have to exclusively pre-
install Google Search; and if they pre-install Google’s apps on any of their
models, they must commit to install only Google’s standard version of Android
on each and every one of their models."

~~~
bduerst
That's a quality control clause to keep manufacturers from pushing apps that
don't work to users. The Google play apps are not compiled to run on every
conceivable custom configuration of open-sourced Android. Samsung installs
Tizen on it's models that don't use play services.

~~~
_stephan
If I understand "if they pre-install Google’s apps on any of their models,
they must commit to install only Google’s standard version of Android on each
and every one of their models" correctly, Google does not allow handset-makers
to sell models with custom Android versions (but without Google Play) if that
maker also wants to sell any model with an approved Android version and Google
Play.

Tizen is not an Android derivative. Do you know enough about Google's
licensing terms to be able to contradict the accusation in the article?

Btw, I entirely understand and sympathize with the desire to prevent Android
fragmentation.

~~~
bduerst
Yeah, I wasn't aware of restricting the specific forks. I'm not sure how that
works if you open source software but then license someone to only use a
specific version.

------
thedevil
This whole anti-trust case seems to be for the benefit of certain businesses
(Microsoft, Yandex, etc) and not consumers.

~~~
kuschku
As a customer, I’m annoyed by having an un-removable Google bar in the recents
menu on my Nexus device. No way to remove without modifying the OS itself
(unlocking bootloader, compiling AOSP myself, flashing myself).

As a developer, I’m annoyed by being forced to use Google Cloud Messaging –
even when that might make it impossible for my app to send notifications,
because there is no single server sending notifications, but millions
(distributed systems are like that), and therefore Google is now locking my
app out from receiving notifications on Android M and N during doze. On
Android M that means during the night, on Android N that means as soon as the
app is in background, it can’t send notifications.

And then there’s the Anti-Fragmentation clause, that forbids OEMs from forking
Android.

The Anti-Fragmentation clause – which has been used several times by Google
against Kindle devices and Tizen – might in fact end up being illegal. The EC
has picked the fight mostly because of this.

~~~
Karunamon
I hope it doesn't wind up being illegal. The android security landscape is a
disaster, in part, because of fragmentation. OEMs need to stop screwing around
with devices.

~~~
kuschku
That’s the cost of having a choice. If there was only one car, we would have
far less to worry about, too. But the laws say that a software manufacturer –
Microsoft or Google – can’t coerce OEMs – be they Dell or SAMSUNG – into using
their OS on all systems.

~~~
Karunamon
What coercion? Those developers can use AOSP and roll whatever OS suits their
fancy.

They want to ship Google's code, they play by their rules. Sounds only fair.

~~~
kuschku
No, they can’t.

Google prevents OEMs like SAMSUNG from shipping Kindle devices. If SAMSUNG
were to ship a Kindle device, Google would immediately stop licensing them the
Play Store for their other devices.

This is part of the contract between Google and OEMs, and it contains this
specific limitation that an OEM can only either ship Google Play devices, or
AOSP devices – but not both at the same time.

~~~
Karunamon
Ah! Okay, that makes a lot more sense and definitely reeks of 90's era
Microsoft-tier anticompetitive behavior.

~~~
kuschku
Exactly. The EU already fought it back then, so it makes sense they’ll fight
it here again.

The other EU antitrust case – the one about the Google Search – also was often
misrepresented, but one of the major concerns was that Google took reviews
from Yelp!, displayed them in Google Maps and Google Search, did not link back
to Yelp!, and when Yelp! requested Google to stop doing so, Google threatened
to blacklist Yelp! from the search completely.

These cases are not just hot air, although it seems like a lot of people try
to misrepresent them, be it for misguided corporate loyalty or personal
incentive.

I personally hope the EU can improve the situation for us users soon.

A Kindle device from HTC would be nice, and the ability to use DuckDuckGo from
the recents menu, not just the Launcher.

Being able to use non-Google push notification services would also reduce my
own costs – I’m a student working on FLOSS apps – by about 15$ a month – I’d
finally be able to get 3G speeds on my phone, currently I can only afford
64kbps unlimited internet.

------
Apofis
Why is it always Google? Apple's iOS is far more locked down and I don't ever
see them in the sights of anti-trust lawsuits.

~~~
millstone
Antitrust law is concerned with anti-competitive contracts and agreements.
Apple controlling what Apple ships on Apple hardware is fine. Google
controlling what Samsung ships on Samsung hardware is not so fine.

~~~
panarky
The point of the article is that Samsung is free to load up its phones with
dozens of apps that compete directly with Google.

Samsung can change the default search engine to Bing, they can pre-install
Facebook, Whatsapp and Skype. They can make is so you can't uninstall Facebook
if you don't want it.

Seems like a much more competitive market than the Apple or Microsoft mobile
ecosystems.

~~~
millstone
> The point of the article is that Samsung is free to load up its phones with
> dozens of apps that compete directly with Google.

OEMs must give the Google apps very prominent placement, including a Google
search bar on the home screen, and in many cases set them as the default. But
this isn't at the heart of the objection. The strongest point is that Google
forbids its licensees from shipping alternative versions of Android. This
means that Samsung cannot offer consumers a choice between (say) GoogleAndroid
and Cyanogen.

> Samsung can change the default search engine to Bing

Google requires OEMs to set Google as the default search engine, according to
the EU complaint. I don't know if that's true; I speculate it's not true for
Samsung (which has negotiating leverage) but is true for smaller OEMs.

> Seems like a much more competitive market than the Apple or Microsoft mobile
> ecosystems.

No way. A true competitive market would be a bunch of Apple-like firms,
independently building whatever products they want. Instead we have all but a
handful of OEMs beholden to Google, under contracts which oblige them to do
things Google's way, and no other way ("anti-fragmentation").

The article makes a case that consumers aren't being harmed by this, because
OEMs make terrible software. This may be true. But it's still anti-
competitive.

------
bearcobra
I'm curious to see if the argument made in the article holds water in court.
Do the examples of other services winning in messaging, music, social, &
storage out weight the App Store and search dominance. Or will the case be
about the limits placed on phone manufacturers, not consumers, making all of
it moot.

~~~
abritinthebay
It's not about limiting consumers actions it's about limiting consumer choice
in the market place.

Related but different. The EU actually has a pretty good case tbh, though I
doubt it'll lead to very much.

Google wants to have the closed control that Apple does (because they want to
control the software) but wants to tout their difference in "openess" because
they needed that to sell hardware (which they profoundly suck at at scale).

Now they've got better at the hardware (see, Nexus lines) they want to slowly
choke off competition. This has been obvious _for years_ but there was very
little to be done about it other than companies moving away from Android
(which isn't really practical short to medium term) or some kind of
governmental play - which this is.

Now... will the EU win? Possibly, it's not a slam dunk, but it could lead to
small - but important - changes in how Google has to play the game.

~~~
bduerst
Except this isn't about consumer control. The EU anti-trust suit is based on
licensing for the proprietary Google Play app, which requires Google Search to
be bundled by manufacturers that want to install Play.

Android is open sourced, the Google Play services are not, and they're not
required to run Android. Consumers can install/uninstall anything they want.
Manufacturers can preinstall anything they want, just that if the license to
preinstall the Play app they need to preinstall Search.

~~~
abritinthebay
> Except this isn't about consumer control.

I know...? I said exactly that..?

------
mrkgnao
The title reads like a cryptic crossword clue.

