
Europe nearing Google antitrust charges - Jerry2
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0%2F7ca69056-0284-11e6-af1d-c47326021344.html
======
levemi
I don't understand why Google gets attacked when at least you can install
competing services and you can't on iOS. Why does iOS get a pass? If Google
built the hardware itself it could lock it down all it wants? That's the
reason? You can get Firefox on Android and not on iOS. You can replace almost
anything, and on iOS you can't. You can disable many of the default apps on
Android, I don't know if you can on iOS.

~~~
moreira
The problem, I believe, is the market share. If your OS is only on 3 or even 4
out of 10 phones, then you're not in a dominant position, and whatever you do,
you're not abusing your market power, which is what antitrust is all about.

So Apple and their OSs will always be safe from this kind of thing because
they're simply not the biggest player when it comes to market share.

~~~
cageface
So why is it that when people want to paint Apple in a positive light they
dismiss market share and point to profits? If Apple pulling in 90% of the
profits in the industry is what counts when evaluating the relative strengths
of both platforms then why doesn't it matter when considering abuses of market
position?

I think it's pretty clear that despite selling a minority of devices Apple has
at least as much power to drive the overall direction of the market as Google.

~~~
sgift
Profits are important for the market you are in. Market share can be important
for dominating markets you are currently _not_ in. That is the base of all
antitrust probes: A dominant market share is not illegal. Using that dominant
market share to boost your position in other markets is illegal.

So, the central question is: Does Google use the dominant market share of
Android and its position to further their position in other markets, e.g. the
browser market (Chrome), the mail application market (GMail App), news market
(Google News) and so on. If yes, there is a problem with european antitrust
law.

~~~
cageface
Apple is clearly levering the market power and integration of iOS and their
other services to drive their agenda in TV, music, mobile payments, cloud
storage, music and video production software, etc etc. I don't see much
difference here.

~~~
sgift
Dominant market power and leveraging it are needed. Apple may leverage their
market power, but they aren't dominant. Let me ask directly: Do you not
understand it (so, do further explanations help) or do you not want to
understand it because it goes against your positions? Both are ok, just asking
for clarification to make sure I don't waste your and my time.

~~~
cageface
They are utterly dominant in the one metric Apple boosters usually claim is
the one that counts. So why is that metric suddenly irrelevant now? I realize
that as the law is written this may not matter but if we're discussing whether
the government _should_ intervene here it's perfectly relevant.

I'm an iOS developer by the way so I'm not anti Apple. I just think there is
already healthy competition in mobile and government intervention is going to
hurt consumers in this case. Apple can regain market share any time it chooses
to by lowering its unprecedented profit margins.

------
bad_user
> _abusing a dominant position in mobile operating systems to pre-install its
> own applications and services in smartphones_

So Google made Android specifically for distributing their apps and services
and everybody knew this and agreed with it. It wasn't even in fine print, it
was written all over it. Everybody knew what they were getting into. I don't
understand how can they abuse their " _position in mobile operating systems_ "
to pre-install their apps when that has been the only reason Android exists.

Is that the sound of incompetence or that of malevolence? Are they aiming for
extortion? Is that it?

~~~
iam-TJ
I suspect one part of the rationale behind this is that as Android has gained
dominance Google has moved some core API functions out of the generic AOSP
source-code (which everyone can use) and into the Google Play services which
require the device manufacturer to sign a contract for, which apparently also
includes terms that have - at least in the past as I understand it - required
pre-installation (possibly in prominent positions) of Google applications.

On that basis there is a strong correlation with the anti-trust convictions of
Microsoft over bundling Internet Explorer into the Windows OS which
effectively destroyed the paid-application model for web browsers (Netscape -
which had 90% market share - could no longer succeed whilst charging ~US$20
(UK£15) and (AOL/Netscape) transferred the code to the Mozilla Foundation _).

_ apologies for glossing over fine-detail but I ran out of my daily
parenthesis allowance.

~~~
bad_user
I know that contractual conditions for Google Play aren't so easy on phone
makers, but then again phone makers are free to build their own marketplace
and ecosystem. I know at least Samsung tried it, their Galaxy phones shipping
with a parallel marketplace, in addition with Google Play. Didn't work out.

I don't know specifics of things moved out of AOSP. If that's true, then
there's some logic to it. But I did use CianogenMod without Google Play on it.
It's still usable. Though certain things like Android's push notification
system cannot happen without Google's infrastructure and that can't simply be
free, even if the integration would be in AOSP. There might be truth to this,
not saying otherwise.

On Microsoft, I blame them for many things, like for killing BeOS or for
fueling SCO's lawsuit against Linux or now for racketeering in the mobile
industry, but bringing anti-trust charges because of Internet Explorer and
splitting them up (as was the plan) would have been a terrible and unjust
ruling. Netscape killed themselves and sorry to say it, but Internet Explorer
was not only free and bundled, but technically superior. And that was fine
IMHO, because in its place Mozilla was born and the rest is history.
Regardless, compare Microsoft of the nineties to what Apple is doing now with
iOS. Makes Microsoft of the nineties look quite open by comparison, doesn't
it? And can you imagine a phone or a computer not shipping with a browser
included by default?

Speaking of browsers, Android is the only mainstream mobile OS that allows
third-party browsers. Firefox is currently only possible for Android.

~~~
iam-TJ
Regarding Microsoft:

The U.S. remedy of splitting Microsoft up (which was over-turned on appeal)
and led to the more limited U.S. Consent decree doesn't negate the findings of
fact:

"Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5,
1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal
computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft
had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java,
Netscape, Lotus Notes, RealNetworks, Linux, and others." [0]

In Europe the EU consistently found against Microsoft and fined them very
large sums (> €1.5B) over the course of more than 10 years due to monopolistic
practices and refusing to implement judgements around bundled media-player,
web-browser and lack of interoperability for server (APIs). [1]

"Microsoft entered into a consent decree in 1994 that barred Microsoft from
conditioning the availability of Windows licenses or varying their prices
based on whether OEMs distributed other operating systems.[8] Microsoft
General Counsel Brad Smith said that the decree was effective in allowing Dell
and HP to offer Linux computers". [2]

This was later nick-named the Windows Tax, but at the time it prevented
alternative OSs such as Digital Research DOS (DR-DOS) from gaining much
traction as a pre-installed OS (I owned a company back then that did pre-
install DR-DOS and it was much better than MS-DOS).

Regarding Google/Android:

"While it might not be an official requirement, being granted a Google apps
license will go a whole lot easier if you join the Open Handset Alliance. The
OHA is a group of companies committed to Android -- Google's Android -- and
members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved
devices. That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life
away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork.

Acer was bit by this requirement when it tried to build devices that ran
Alibaba's Aliyun OS in China. Aliyun is an Android fork, and when Google got
wind of it, Acer was told to shut the project down or lose its access to
Google apps. Google even made a public blog post about it:

"While Android remains free for anyone to use as they would like, only Android
compatible devices benefit from the full Android ecosystem. By joining the
Open Handset Alliance, each member contributes to and builds one Android
platform -- not a bunch of incompatible versions." [3]

Also in that article is a good overview (albeit from 2013) of how Google has
progressively moved open source functionality into the closed source Google
applications.

And from a different source (lauding the move to Play services) there's:

"Google not only has pulled these services and their respective APIs out of
the OS, it has made it easy for application developers to use them. The past
few days here at Google I/O we've seen just how easy it can be to add these
features to an app, because Google is doing all the heavy lifting. Developers
only need to reference the particular thing they need from the Google Play
Services application in their code, and the magic happens when you run it on
your phone." [4]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Judgment)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation#Anti-
trus...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation#Anti-trust)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows#The_.22Windows_tax.22)

[3] [http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-10/21/googles-
iron-...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-10/21/googles-iron-grip-on-
android)

[4] [http://www.androidcentral.com/new-google-play-
services](http://www.androidcentral.com/new-google-play-services)

~~~
bad_user
Granted, the prohibition from building non-Google approved devices, along with
stopping Acer from building Aliyun OS devices looks bad.

------
ksdale
To add a little context based on an antitrust course taken in a U.S. law
school a few years ago, European antitrust law is quite different from
American antitrust law so American ideas about market share and consumer
choice may not be applicable.

In the U.S. the primary focus of antitrust enforcement is on the consumer, so
if the consumer is getting a solid product for "free" and has lots of other
options, there is no chance of an antitrust action happening.

From what I remember, European antitrust enforcement also takes the well-being
of competitors into account, so if one company has a large market share and
enough pricing power to make it difficult for competitors to survive, the
authorities may bring legal action, based on the theory that it's better for
society to have more different businesses offering choice and employing
people.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I don't think this is actually all that different. Both jurisdictions
recognize that competition is preferable. Minor differences in why they focus
on that, is probably not all that relevant. Making it impossible for
competitors to function in the US is problematic as well, because it leads to
a lack of consumer choice. (Just because Google is free, doesn't mean all of
us want it.)

Furthermore, the EU has demonstrated overall a stronger focus, I think, on the
individual over corporate interests. Seen also in their handling of privacy,
where they're willing to place large burdens on corporations in order to
adequately protect their citizens' fundamental rights.

------
EGreg
Wait so the EU can have a $7B windfall from a guilty verdict yet they will
remain impartial? Nice!

~~~
fabulist
The judges shouldn't be seeing a penny more or less no matter the verdict. If
they're bribed that is another matter.

~~~
EGreg
But don't the judges work for the EU?

~~~
fabulist
Yes, and their job is to interpret the law impartially. It isn't a perfect
system. How would you suggest we improve upon it?

~~~
hvm
We could create a political body that is outside any of the countries.
Everyone that agrees to be part of it will have to respect its decisions.

Once this is setup the world will be united. We can then call it the United
Countries or something like that. It's going to be great!

