
Google warns Android might not remain free because of EU decision - sahin-boydas
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/18/17585396/google-android-eu-fine-response
======
chappi42
What a nice PR reply Pichal is delivering here.

There might be 1'300 brands and 24'000 devices, but all are bound to the
Google conditions. This is not choice.

Phone makers may be free to also pre-install competing apps alongside Googles,
but they are not free to not install Googles app. This is not choice.

I'm using a Jolla phone. Its producer (afaik) is not allowed to support the
Play Store without accepting the far reaching (now deemed illegal) conditions
of Google. A severe hindrance of my choice.

What is this sentence about the rule "sends a troubling signal in favor of
proprietary systems over open platforms"? The Google Play Services is closed
source and required for quite some Android apps, is it?

Of course you intend to appeal. But from my point of view you deserve every
cent of the fine!

~~~
kajecounterhack
> There might be 1'300 brands and 24'000 devices, but all are bound to the
> Google conditions. This is not choice.

Building and maintaining android costs money. It's your opinion that
"following Google's conditions" is onerous, and "not choice." Clearly the
situation is that the android business model is supported by Google's terms.
The alternative is something maintained by whom?

> The Google Play Services is closed source and required for quite some
> Android apps, is it?

As someone who worked in abuse: if you provide an app store that doesn't have
governance, it'll be full of spyware/malware and finding the app you actually
want, well good luck. So yeah, the app store service is run by Google and it
wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source.

The overall angry attitude that "this all should be free software and that
there are unpure components is wrong" \-- is kind of shameful. If you care so
much then go build a free software alternative. And if you're mad about walled
gardens then get mad at Apple. Google's trying for a middle ground to provide
consumers more choice than iOS vs free-software-that-nobody-maintains-or-
isn't-safe. Yelling at people to make everything free isn't a solution.

~~~
ballenf
> Building and maintaining android costs money. ... Clearly the situation is
> that the android business model is supported by Google's terms. The
> alternative is something maintained by whom?

It's not the EU's responsibility to come up with a new business model for
Android that isn't illegal. Just because the business model they chose is
illegal doesn't mean that we have throw out the baby with the bathwater.

> As someone who worked in abuse: if you provide an app store that doesn't
> have governance, it'll be full of spyware/malware and finding the app you
> actually want, well good luck. So yeah, the app store service is run by
> Google and it wouldn't make any sense for that to be open source.

I think you're conflating two separate issues. Google Play _services_ include
much more than just the Play _Store_ and could very well be open source or at
least have publicly accessible APIs licensed on non-anticompetitive terms. The
Play Store can keep out malware without requiring phone makers to swear
undivided loyalty and submission to Google.

~~~
Karishma1234
> It's not the EU's responsibility to come up with a new business model for
> Android that isn't illegal.

Actually it is. A regulatory body is supposed to give maximum freedom to
business to help them come up with cheaper and better products while not
violating other people's rights.

EU is equivalent of the white cop shooting an unarmed black kid and then have
audacity to call himself the defender of law and justice.

But Google is simply pointing out that the people who will end up paying the
$5B fine is not Google shareholders by the EU users. As a person who owns
Google shares I think Google must modify their playstore policies to charge EU
android users and extra fee to pay for this $5B fine.

~~~
lovich
>A regulatory body is supposed to give maximum freedom to business to help
them come up with cheaper and better products while not violating other
people's rights.

Where did you manage to come up with that definition of regulatory bodies?
Their job is to regulate actors under their jurisdiction based on goals set
for them by their respective legislature. They don't all have an overarching
goal of improving businesses. Some are(were) explicitly opposed to business
interests like the EPA

------
rayiner
I don't see this as a bad thing. There was nothing wrong with for-pay
operating systems, like Symbian. A manufacturer could just buy a license, and
pass the cost along to the consumer, without the consumer being coerced into
signing up for services and handing over their private data. A Symbian license
used to be $5 per unit. Google's Android model likely makes Google multiples
of that over the lifetime of each unit, but somehow Google has managed to bill
Android as "free."

A simple exchange of currency for a product is a fantastic business model.
Google has been instrumental in undermining it, with "free" products, and I
wouldn't be sad to see that stop.

~~~
blihp
Agreed. Given the direction Google has gone with Android (and it sure looks
like they're working hard to try to kill it off in favor of something they
control completely like Chrome OS/Fuchsia/whatever) it would be great to
inject some actual competition into the mobile marketplace. The current
Apple/Google duopoly isn't getting it done for me.

> somehow Google has managed to bill Android as "free."

Unfortunately, Google got away with telling a whopper of a lie in that they
were building a free and open platform when behind the scenes they were doing
anything but. Maybe it was true in the first year or two but hasn't been the
case this decade (i.e. the ODM agreements prohibiting non-Google flavors of
Android which are pretty much the reason it's so difficult to find non-Google
flavored devices based on the 'open' Android platform. IIRC, Amazon only
managed to get it done by going to the few contract manufacturers who weren't
already making any Google authorized devices for anyone else.)

------
bmcusick
That's basically what the EU is demanding. The EU has handed down what is an
anti-tying decision. "You can't tie Android to Google Search, because that
prevents competition in Search."

Okay then, but Google Search is what paid for Android development, so if you
can't tie them together, Android needs to seek other sources of funding. The
most obvious one is some sort of licensing fee.

(It could also possibly fund itself from search revenue (like Firefox) and App
Store fees, although the second one could be broken up by the EU too on anti-
tying grounds)

It's no different from when Windows was prevented from tying Windows to
Internet Explorer. It opened competition in browsers (and we now have Firefox,
Chrome, Opera, Brave, etc.), but it also forced browsers to find independent
business models.

~~~
furgooswft13
> It opened competition in browsers (and we now have Firefox, Chrome, Opera,
> Brave, etc.)

MS all but ceasing development on IE after version 6 is what opened
competition in browsers, not any government action. Remember from IE4 to 6
before Firefox was released Internet Explorer really was the best browser out
there. MS used their Windows monopoly to aid distribution and their huge piles
of cash to make it free (vs paid-for Netscape), but it wasn't like it was crap
software that was _only_ being used because MS force-fed it to everybody. At
least not until they (probably intentionally) let it wither and die and
Firefox and then Chrome ate their lunch.

~~~
reitanqild
Was about to disagree but on closer reading I agree.

I'll still say the browser choice thing was a good thing as it spread the
message, and helped get a critical mass of users to use other browser so that
web developers had to design cross browser solutions for a while until they
got lazy again and started only designing for Chrome.

~~~
repolfx
Is there any evidence the EU's mandated browser choice thing had that effect
at all? IIRC what moved the needle on Firefox was huge grassroots campaigns,
and what moved the needle on Chrome was advertising it on the Google home
page. I've never heard any argument that the Windows choice box made any
impact.

------
pornel
The TFA is actually pretty clear:

> The Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for
> __general internet search services __, __licensable smart mobile operating
> systems __and __app stores for the Android mobile operating system __.

And the complaint isn't about choice of OSes or any "anti-FOSS" bullshit, but
about choice of search on Android and abusing their position to stop use of
Android forks:

In particular, Google:

• 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").

~~~
jaredklewis
Sure, and Pichai is saying it doesn't make good business sense for Google to
spend a lot of money developing a mobile OS and then give it away for free
unless they can use it to push their other products, like search. Google's
business model was to give away the OS for free, but require Google apps to be
bundled (in exchange for play store access).

So I have nothing against the EU decision, but Google's response is just
common sense. They aren't a charity. If Google can't bundle their money makers
with the phones, that kills the current business model and leaves them footing
the Android development bill while getting nothing in return. So, they need a
new business model; making Android proprietary is an obvious option.

~~~
chottocharaii
That may be the argument. Yet it was considered by the commission & dismissed
as there are ways to monetize android profitably for google without resorting
to anticompetitive contracts.

~~~
dunpeal
> there are ways to monetize android profitably for google without resorting
> to anticompetitive contracts.

Interesting! What are these ways?

~~~
telchar
Supposing a manufacturer wanted to use Android on it's phones, they could pay
a sum of money for the right to do that in proportion to the number of phones
the software were installed on. This fee would cover Google's costs and need
for profit. You could call it a license fee, perhaps.

------
sourcesmith
"Pichai highlights the fact a typical Android user will “install around 50
apps themselves” and can easily remove preinstalled apps."

You cannot remove the pre-installed apps, in my experience, only the
subsequent updates to those apps.

~~~
mehrdadn
Yeah, I'd say this is wrong. His direct quote is [1]:

> Today, because of Android, a typical phone comes preloaded with as many as
> 40 apps from multiple developers, not just the company you bought the phone
> from. If you prefer other apps—or browsers, or search engines—to the
> preloaded ones, you can easily disable or delete them, and choose other apps
> instead, including apps made by some of the 1.6 million Europeans who make a
> living as app developers.

"Easily disable or delete"? Not to mention the lack of deletion on a lot of
these (...any? I don't recall if I've seen any with deletion), I don't always
even find a _hard_ way to disable _or_ delete preinstalled apps on phones...
unless we're talking about booting custom bootloaders and wiping your phone
etc.

[1] [https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-
europe/andro...](https://www.blog.google/around-the-globe/google-
europe/android-has-created-more-choice-not-less/)

~~~
kevindqc
Don't you just need to long press the app icon and choose disable/delete?

~~~
enriquto
yes, but you cannot delete the google apps such as chrome or gmail (the option
is not "enabled")

~~~
digi_owl
Thankfully those are most often bundled as stubs that take barely any space.
roll back the updates and then disable. Did that to Chrome for the longest
time as i was using Firefox on my Android device (before Mozilla went nuts.
Now i am flipflopping between Opera and Brave, while waiting for Vivaldi to
get a mobile version).

~~~
mehrdadn
Keep in mind that (a) if the fact that you have to roll back updates is not
obvious to people here, I'm not sure how a normal user is supposed to find it
"easy", and (b) if you have to roll it back too, you'd lose your data in that
app, so it's neither as consequence-free as disabling, nor as thorough as
deleting (freeing all the space etc.).

~~~
kllrnohj
Simply hitting "disable" warns you that it will uninstall updates & delete
user data.

It's literally a single button press to get back 100% of the space possible,
and it's the button called "disable" right in front at the top of the app's
info section.

~~~
enriquto
It's infuriatingly confusing and it's not clear that you will get back 100% of
the space. If they are sincere about this, why cannot you simply _fucking
uninstall_ the damn application ? No stub, no nothing. Just a normal app like
the others, that you can install or not.

~~~
kllrnohj
Because it's on the system partition which is fixed size and read-only. That's
how factory reset works, by nuking the data partition.

They probably should just lie and rename the button to uninstall. That's
basically what it is.

------
mankash666
EU's charges are a sham. I hope Google gives the EU regulators _exactly_ what
they deserve:

Google should _outright_ stop licensing Android to manufacturers in the EU
(like Apple), make the OS closed source (like Apple), disable side-loading
apps (like Apple), purposefully make the mobile browser incompatible with W3C
standards (like Apple) in an effort to drive developers & consumers to the app
store, and slap a minimum price tag of $1000 on Pixel phones (like Apple).

Maybe then, the true value of choice will sink in.

~~~
lowtolerance
I get your point and I know it’s a great way to reap those free internet
points, but you’re being a little disingenuous with the Apple hate here. Apple
_never_ licensed out iOS to the EU or anywhere else. The kernel of iOS is open
source. I think it’s a stretch to conclude that Apple purposefully makes their
browser incompatible with web standards in any meaningful way to drive App
Store revenue. And the minimum price of an iPhone is nowhere near $1000. They
start at $350 retail.

~~~
mankash666
I get _your_ point, and deifying Apple with falsehoods is indeed a great way
to score internet points. But touting Apple fandom as facts is disingenuous
here.

> Apple never licensed out iOS to the EU or anywhere else: I never implied it
> did.

> The kernel of iOS is open source. Please link a ROM to load on my iPhone. I
> can give you a hundred for any popular Android device.

> I think it’s a stretch to conclude that Apple purposefully makes their
> browser incompatible with web standards in any meaningful way to drive App
> Store revenue. There's ample evidence to the contrary, and statements from
> within Apple

> They start at $350 retail. No - you can't confuse carrier subsidies and
> contracts with price.

~~~
lowtolerance
> They start at $350 retail. No - you can't confuse carrier subsidies and
> contracts with price.

Well it’s a good thing I’m not talking about subsidizing pricing, then. An SE
out of contract is $349. An iPhone 8 - a flagship phone - is $699, just a
little more than a Pixel.

~~~
mankash666
I was unaware of iPhone SE's pricing. I stand corrected - you're right about
the price.

------
chottocharaii
I’d encourage readers to have a look at the actual decision here:

[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-4581_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-18-4581_en.htm)

Googles behaviour is indefensible

~~~
sandstrom
I second this! The reasoning behind the decision is spelled out in plain
english. I encourage everyone to read the EU decision (takes ~3 min) and form
your own opinion.

This passage is an example:

    
    
        Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, 
        dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful 
        market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they 
        are dominant or in separate markets.
    
        Google has engaged in three separate types of practices, which all had the aim 
        of cementing Google's dominant position in general internet search.
    
        1. Illegal tying of Google's search and browser apps.
        2. Illegal payments conditional on exclusive pre-installation of Google Search.
        3. Illegal obstruction of distribution of competing Android OS forks.

------
enriquto
They are downright lying. The animation on Pichai's talk tries to present
removing the google chrome _icon_ from the main screen as "uninstalling" it.
Do they really think people are idiots?

~~~
pentae
Yes. And sadly, most people are idiots.

------
amelius
> Android might not remain free

For a long time I've been hoping to be able to pay for Google products so I
can use them without being the product myself. And so this statement is sort
of an answer to those prayers.

~~~
repolfx
You won't get that. Look at Windows. You pay for it, and it includes ads and
data tracking too.

If the EU gets its way here, all that'll happen is that:

a) New releases of Android won't be open source anymore.

b) The cost of Android may well skyrocket, making smartphones suddenly an
elite luxury rather than something everyone can have.

c) Android devices will still come with lots of Google services that will work
in largely the same way, because most users actually want them.

d) Cyanogen and other variants of Android designed for people who care an
unusual amount about data and privacy will cease to exist.

It'd be a classic case of regulatory own goals: nothing would get better, it'd
get worse for everyone.

~~~
TheArcane
> b) The cost of Android may well skyrocket, making smartphones suddenly an
> elite luxury rather than something everyone can have.

This is pessimism bordering on FUD.

------
bencollier49
This is reminiscent of banks in the UK, who come out with direful warnings
that they'll end free banking every time they're forced to lower their
swingeing overdraft fees.

------
vxNsr
If it's suddenly gonna cost money, it was never really free before either.

Google is far and away the worst OSS maintainer, a lot of their allegedly OSS
work is really just a code dump with all the real work being done behind
closed doors.

------
simion314
Windows was not free and it did not help with the IE bundle case.

------
evadne
This is preposterous. Android is more or less AOSP + Google Play services, and
the latter are not free for manufacturers to use. There is a license fee. In
addition devices need to pass a compatibility test suite (CTS) for them to be
eligible for Google Play services. Similar requirements for using Google Pay.

In my personal opinion Android is abused by Chinese OEMs who want the cheapest
free thing they can put together. They buy SoC solutions from Mediatek,
Allwinner, etc. and the end user never get OS updates or security patches
anyhow. The OEMs need to be forced to support what they have shipped.

------
mc32
I know it’s not going to happen, but part of me wishes this would allow
Windows Phone to be viable.

It was such a great mobile OS for basic and not so basic functions.
Unfortunately MS had no strategy and no independent serious developers spent
their limited resources on it and it withered.

~~~
toast0
MS had worse than no strategy, they abandoned their strategy that was working.
WP 8 was reasonably decent, and sold a lot of phones at the low-end ($50 for a
Lumia 521 or later a 640 would get you a phone that basically worked, with a
limited app catalog; vs a $50 Android that probably had low storage warnings
on first boot). Then for WM 10, they had fired their QA team and re-orged away
the phone team, and they delivered a stunningly poor OS release, but there
were no cheap phones for it anyway -- the Lumia 650 was essentially spec
equivalent to the 640, and they wanted app developers to start building
'universal' apps that would only work on Windows mobile 10, which I think
still has fewer users than WP 8.

~~~
pjmlp
Yeah, the whole WP7 - WP 8 - WP 8.1 - WP 10 transition was pretty bad managed.

They should just have migrated Siverligth and XNA, with addition of new C++
APIs, instead of rebooting everything a couple of times.

However I bet that the platform suffered from Sinofsky effect and the usual
DevTools/WinDev issues as well.

Still I loved my WP and even with the downfall on the horizon ended up getting
a 650 that I still use.

By the time they closed shop on WP, the EU market was reaching about 10%.

~~~
toast0
I left after installing WM10 on my 640 --- I couldn't go stomach going back to
WP 8.1 with it's notification issues, but Edge was soooo bad, and there's no
other browsers. :(

~~~
mc32
Perhaps personal pref but I prefer the Edge browsing experience over the
iPhone’s Safari browsing experience.

~~~
toast0
I haven't used Safari, but Edge would consistently not respond to pushing
buttons like stop and back. It was prettier than mobile IE from WP 8 when it
worked, and address bar on the bottom is clearly better than on top like most
other mobile browsers, but on a platform with few apps, the browser has to
just work. On larger pages, if you scrolled down far enough, the page would go
all white.

------
ggggtez
Unfortunately it seems like the EU is arguing that free software (with
conditions) is illegal. And yet, in the US, we see defacto monopolies in ISPs
double dipping on consumers and businesses all day long.

The fact that major economies are taking diametrically opposed viewpoints is
going to continue to cause chaos for the foreseeable future...

~~~
Daishiman
What? That's not what they are saying _at all_. Why don't you actually read
the ruling?

------
cobookman
Why isn't Apple also being Fined?

~~~
simion314
Because they do not have a monopoly in market A and abuse that to get an
advantage on market B, where in this case A is mobile market from low to high
end and B is search/user tracking/analytics/advertising

~~~
alangpierce
Arguably Apple is doing a similar thing by bundling iMessage and iTunes (and
probably others), both of which have plenty of competitors but probably have
an inherent advantage on iOS because they're built-in.

~~~
simion314
Ubuntu is also bundling Firefox and some default applications but they are not
abusing any dominant position, Apple is at least in EU a niche, it has a
significant market only on high end/expensive devices.

Apple is doing a lot of bad things too and I hope the right for repair will
become a reality and Apple is forced to let people fix their devices.

~~~
alangpierce
I guess it feels a bit weird to say "the most successful operating system in a
given region isn't allowed to bundle any first-party apps, but all of the
other ones are". They seem like different scales of the same thing, and maybe
Android's case is only being seen as "abuse" because it's at a larger scale
due to more marketshare.

~~~
simion314
Is not about bundling, if Google would sell it's own Pixel phone is OK, but if
I want to make a contract with Google to sell my xPhone with Android the
illegal part is when Google is forcing my hand to put Google apps on the phone
and put the Google search on the home screen on all my xPhones but also on say
my cheap xCrap devices. The problem here is also the Google search part, you
use your dominance in mobile OS market to force people into your search
service.

------
bad_user
Despicable how Google can lie in a press release.

I’ve owned 5 Android phones thus far from LG, Motorola and Samsung and the
preinstalled apps could not be uninstalled on either of them.

~~~
vetinari
"or disable"

I've owned multitude devices since original G1 till today, and every single of
them allowed to disable Google apps. In fact, I have disabled most of them.

~~~
bad_user
Not good enough. If they cannot be uninstalled it means they are part of the
base operationg system, which means that:

1\. They represent a constant security risk, since the disabled version does
not get updated

2\. Other apps can rely on Google’s components; they actually warn that by
disabling them you can run into misbehavior of other apps

Also, last I tried you can’t disable Google Play Services, which is actually
the most important piece.

~~~
vetinari
It is good enough.

They cannot be uninstalled, because they are part of a partition that is read-
only. It is read-only, because it doubles as a recovery/factory reset.

They do not represent security risk, because system ignores them. They do not
get loaded, no process is ever created for them and they are not considered
when broadcasting intents.

You cannot disable Google Play Services, because it is actually a framework,
not app. Your only reasonable way to have it disabled is only after you
persuade all the app authors not to use it. Good luck with that.

~~~
bad_user
> _They cannot be uninstalled, because they are part of a partition that is
> read-only._

So Google is lying in its press release, proving my point?

Also, I do not care on what partition they are installed. That’s a technical
detail which cannot serve as justification for locking in users.

What isn’t a technical detail however is the fact that regular users do not
know how to disable apps, because that option is hidden in the Settings menu
and comes with scary warnings.

Also, there is no app uploaded on [https://f-droid.org/](https://f-droid.org/)
that depends on Google Play Services, so the point on _persuading all app
authors_ is obviously stretching it, since some of them have been persuaded
already. Also this being about _choice_ it’s pretty obvious that if I want to
disable Google Play Services then I also want to avoid any app that depends on
it.

On the security risk, I don’t know if those components get loaded or not. As
long as that code is on my phone, I cannot trust it not to be executed at some
point in time.

What if I enable that app by mistake? What if it gets enabled via the dozens
of exploits that happen every year? Do you promise that it won’t ever be
executed again? That’s not how security works.

~~~
vetinari
> So Google is lying in its press release, proving my point?

Please point out where in the PR they are lying. To make it easier for you:

> you can easily _disable or_ delete them,

Note the "disable or". Which is exactly the FIRST line of my first comment in
this thread.

The /system partition is also not about locking in users. It has a specific
technical reason. But I get it, you are not interesting in constructive
debate, you want to "win".

Find someone else to discuss then, I'm interested only in rational discussion.

------
enitihas
While I understand that the law is not required to be a mathematical statement
and requires case by case interpretation, I wonder if these leaves several
burning questions on the table:

1\. Was it illegal for apple to force install apple maps on iOS users,
stiffling competing maps apps? 2\. Is it illegal for apple to not provide
other browsers JIT capabilities, effectively forcing them to be a skin on top
of Safari?

I understand that iOS has no market dominance. But if iOS reaches 60% shares
in a country, can the country demand substantial changes to iOS to encourage
competitors? 70%? 80%?. Does a company need to make its product more open as
it starts dominating the market.

Also, how would such market segments be defined for market domination? Phones?
Smart phones? Phones with a particular characteristics? Phones with a
particular OS(as phone inter operability is widely within OSes only)

Not defending any side here, but would love to hear what I am missing here.

Edit: As the press release of the commission says "market for .... licensable
smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating
system.". It seems using this vocabulary even Apple can be branded a monopoly,
dominant in "unlicensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for
the iOS mobile operating system". Then isn't even apple using their dominance
of "app store for iOS" to dominate other market segments?

------
dvfjsdhgfv
All the better. If it's not free, some non-spying alternatives may finally
appear/gain wider adoption.

~~~
s3r3nity
Just curious: why don't you consider Apple as a "non-spying" alternative? Or
are you just saying that there's room for yet another option?

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
I didn't mean Apple, rather other attempts that all failed so far, such as
Maemo/Moblin/Tizen etc.

On the other hand, even though Apple definitely is tracking users to some
extent and has a large database of users, including their real names,
addresses and other personal data, they don't have the technical means to
build such a complex profile of each person as Google. Based just on your
search and visit history Google knows more about us, our fears and secrets
more than our partners. So it's in our best interests not to strengthen their
position further.

------
zjaffee
I'm confused at how this is any different than how both android and ios embed
siri and google assistant in over allowing other assistants to compete, or
what about the fact that you need to log in with an apple/google account to
really use the platforms in any meaningful way (for at least most android
distributions).

Part of me wonders if the EU just has a problem with google, as they have
charged them time and time again, when other platforms engaging in anti-
competitive practices get away with it.

~~~
marichards
Market size matters.

Also, I'm guessing a complaint has to be brought to the EU before they'll
investigate.

Are there any official complaints against Apple?

------
adrianhel
Antitrust? To make money by giving away software that contains your free, but
monetized software? Vendors are still able to bundle other browsers.

What's next?

Me no likey.

~~~
Radle
Vendors are not capable of bundling other search engines, when they preinstall
the google playstore.

~~~
adrianhel
Play Store makes the Android gears grind. Go with Ubuntu then. I do really
want an OSS mobile OS. Android is close enough though.

------
a-dub
Are there other parties that want this, or are they just replaying Microsoft
in the 1990s.

If they wanted to do something actually useful, they should take a look at
privacy issues surrounding Android. It's like the damn thing was architected
for maximum spreading of personal and behavioral data across apps.

~~~
Sylos
Lawsuit for that is on its way. Filed by NOYB in the night that the GDPR took
effect.

------
ezoe
EU, you are fighting the wrong war.

Bundled user-space software means nothing compared to the bundled OS.

We should have a phone without OS, install the OS of our choice, just like
ordinary computer.

The non-free smartphone ecosystem doesn't allow me to do that.

So, I refuse to own or use the phone.

~~~
Tom4hawk
I hope Librem 5 will provide this experience.

~~~
ezoe
I think not.

I lost all the hope on the smartphone ecosystem.

------
coinerone
I would love to Buy an Operating system for my Smartphone if it is well
supported and maintained. Like buying OSX or Windows or a commercial Linux
Version. Also i would like to see a third Player on the Market.

~~~
criddell
> i would like to see a third Player on the Market

Tizen? Windows Phone?

~~~
skykooler
Sailfish OS?

~~~
coinerone
Yes. But one that can successfully compete in terms of "get popular apps for
my Smartphone".

------
sjwright
In what sense is Android "free" right now? Android—by which I mean the Android
a consumer would recognise and expect—hasn't been "free" in any sense of the
word for quite some time.

~~~
digi_owl
Possibly never. I recall some tech bloggers voicing puzzlement when early
Android tablets didn't ship with Marketplace installed. Thing is that at the
time Google insisted that all Android devices had to be fitted with a mobile
network radio. End result was that they basically handed Apple the first
runner advantage in the tablet market.

------
telltruth
Why is Google shooting itself in the foot? Customers demands Google search,
they really don’t need to force anyone to include it. I see miniscual losss -
if at all - if they just didn’t had these restrictions. This is likely the
dumbest thing they have done in a while and now Pitchai is doubling down for
no apparent reason or benefit. His language actually looks so Microsofty circa
2000.

------
ionised
Android is 'free' in much the same way other Google services are 'free'. As
in, they're not because you are giving a lot in return for its use.

So fuck it. I'd rather pay more for an Android phones that give me more
control over what is included with it and what can be removed.

Ideally let me run an Android phone with NO Google applications whatsoever,
without having to root it and mess around with community ROMs.

------
Karishma1234
I am not sure why Google should not make EU consumers pay those $5B fine by
increasing prices of Android OS and other Google services for EU region.

EU has become a parking lot for unelectable politicians who meddle with other
people's life while themselves living at other people's expenses and this just
another example of how EU will eventually simply break up.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
> it sends a troubling signal in favor of proprietary systems over open
> platforms

Sorry, Sundar, but this signal was sent by you. Android users receive it in
multiple ways when our phones nag us to turn on tracking options and your
company builds a complex profile about all aspects of our lives. Yes, a
proprietary non-tracking alternative starts to look more attractive.

------
LolNoGenerics
I wonder what would change if android wasn't free anymore.

Android devices getting more expensive, better market share for apple?

------
mchahn
All I hear is "I'm going to take my ball and go home if you won't play my
way".

------
ikeboy
[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-google-
lawsuit/orac...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-google-
lawsuit/oracle-lawyer-says-googles-android-generated-31-billion-revenue-
idUSKCN0UZ2W9)

------
throw2016
For all intents and purposes Android is closed source and is not free. As for
financials when you pay for your phone you are paying for it. Better remove
the pretense and be closed.

The same drivers that are used on Android are not available on Linux. Linux is
running on your phone but you can install or use it. The Arm-Google
partnership pretend to be open but for all effective practical purposes are
closed and this is just clever theatre masquerading as open.

Companies like Google have become experts at lulling people into a sense of
complacency about open source and open platforms.

And what are they actually doing. They are using open source software to build
global surveillance spyware platforms with pervasively misleading language and
dark patterns. Perhaps it's time open source licenses consider a condition
that they can't be used for surveillance and spyware.

~~~
pjmlp
Also Project Treble kind of made the Linux kernel on Android behave like a
mikrokernel, with drivers being implemented as separated processes, using
Android's IPC to talk with the kernel.

[https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/hidl/](https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/hidl/)

------
Justsignedup
This is a huge positive.

This puts a real price tag on the OS. I hope more policies do the same to
email and other things. The hidden advertising cost is shitty because it is
highly hidden.

------
derReineke
Kay. I don't really see any issues here. They got a legitimate fine and now
they might charge licensing. Maybe this will help open up the market a little.

------
HillaryBriss
he's bluffing. it makes no business sense for Google to charge customers or
OEMs for Android. Android would lose market share.

it's not like the world was clamoring for Google to produce Android in the
first place. Google is good at search and advertising. they weren't a mobile
OS and dev tool company in 2006 and they're still not.

Android isn't all that good.

~~~
repolfx
Android's market share is irrelevant to Google because it's a loss leader.
They pay for it by encouraging usage of their other services which they
monetize with ads. An Android with 100% market share where every handset
forced users to use Bing would be worthless to them.

It's quite likely if these conditions were removed from the Android licenses
that nothing would immediately change because there is no latent demand for
Android devices with DuckDuckGo or Bing or OSM map apps. At least not in
Europe. However, the principle remains that Google has no incentive to build
Android if it gets used to funnel traffic to its own competitors, and
especially it would be disastrous for developers if Android forked into many
incompatible versions.

Hence the most likely outcome is that Android simply becomes closed source,
and to access it you either have to agree to today's terms and bundle their
services, or pay to cover the revenue Google feels like they might not get if
you don't.

~~~
HillaryBriss
> Android's market share is irrelevant to Google because it's a loss leader

I disagree. Android market share is _highly relevant to Google_. Android is
_the_ platform where Google exerts its strongest ability to
nudge/influence/cajole/incentivize users to use its money making services
(e.g. search). If Android loses market share, Google loses money.

What's more, Android market share keeps Google in the game. Google pays Apple
3 billion each year to be included as the default search engine on iOS.

[https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-
apple-3-billio...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying-
apple-3-billion-to-remain-default-search--bernstein.html)

What would happen if Google did not have Android at all? What alternative
would it have to paying Apple (and any other company with a competitive mobile
OS) an ever-growing share of its search revenue? How would Google compete
against Bing and others if, instead, Windows Mobile had Android's market
share? Google would be in a weaker, less profitable, position.

The driving reason Google bothered to create Android in the first place was to
stay relevant in an economy which was transitioning away from desktop and
toward mobile.

~~~
repolfx
Yes, exactly, Android's market share _in and of itself_ is irrelevant to
Google, it's only relevant when considering other products. If Google didn't
have web search and ads, then Android's marketshare would be existential, but
as it is, Android exists mostly to reduce TAC costs for other products. If
they could eliminate TAC in some cheaper way than developing a whole OS they'd
do it.

------
qop
What is the likelihood that Google actually pays the fine?

What's most likely to happen for users in EU?

------
ForHackernews
Android is already nonfree, in that it includes loads of proprietary bits. If
Google starts trying to charge phone makers big bucks, that's just more
incentive for Samsung to fork AOSP themselves.

Google doesn't want to see a fractured ecosystem they can't control, so I
agree with the article that it's an empty bluff.

~~~
simion314
Google is working on a new Android kernel so they were planning in a long
while to take full control and probably go closed source with newer Android
versions.

~~~
ge0rg
I don't think that replacing Linux under the hood of Android will change
anything. Most of Android is licensed under the Apache license, probably due
to the alternative Java runtime they took initially from the Apache
Foundation.

They sheer developer power Google has at hand to throw at Android development,
including out-of-tree-kernel patchsets, means that it is a very significant
effort to just keep pace with them, and the AOSP "code drops" come late and
require major integration work.

If they wanted to switch to a closed-source model, they could have adopted
that for the runtime a long time ago, still keeping the closed-source blob on
top of the Linux kernel.

Maybe the EU decision will change the benefit balance of Android "being open
source", and Google will go on with forking off / replacing the whole
middleware, but I think that with their speed of Android development most
commercially viable OEMs only have a chance to follow by subscribing to Google
contracts (and maybe getting early access to new releases) anyway.

~~~
simion314
If Google has the copyright of the code their own developers wrote then they
can relicense any code they wrote, including GPL.

Edit Also they will probably try to replace Java with Dart to get around the
Java/Oracle problem

~~~
ge0rg
They do have the copyright to the code they wrote, but not to the code they
took and changed (Apache Harmony, Linux kernel). They can relicense everything
that originated from them, and provide it under a pure commercial license or
dual-license it.

However, it might mean that they have to re-implement big parts of the Android
runtime, or even do clean-room implementations by people not previously
involved in those projects, to prevent legal attacks on the inevitably-similar
code that results.

------
weightlossify
google can't be expected to give away something for free and not get something
back

AND perhaps users should be given choice in all matters not OS core
functionalities / search and others/

------
dep_b
I would be very interested what Google thinks is the price of my privacy. At
least 50 bucks or I'm going to be disappointed.

------
undef_in
Considering there software update model for Nexus/Pixel devices People will
likely jump to iBoat.

------
nfrankel
I believe there's a word for that. Blackmail

------
mehrdadn
Did this story get demoted somehow? How/why, and why silently so? I thought I
saw it on the front page but now it's on page 4, when it currently has 35
points in 1 hour, and there's nothing comparable on that page (everything else
is much older or lower voted).

~~~
sctb
The discussion tripped the flamewar detector, which we've just turned off.

~~~
mehrdadn
Oh haha wow, okay thanks!

------
dontnotice
"Given Google’s dominance in search and browsers and the popularity of its
many web services, Pichai’s warning looks more like a bluff to court popular
opinion than a genuine threat that Android will no longer be free."

I wish these bloggers would keep their biases and unsubstantiated commentary
to themselves.

This fine is an assault on open source, the fact linux didn't attain
mainstream appeal on the desktop was largely due to the lack of condition and
harmonization across distros.

In any other context fining an open source project for antitrust violations is
absurd.

~~~
detaro
They are not fining an open source project. They are fining a company making
bad rules about what others are allowed to do with said open source project,
e.g. by forcing them to choose between using Google stuff everywhere or
nowhere in their devices.

~~~
dontnotice
Any company can use AOSP in their devices and laod them with anything they
like, see the Chinese market, see Amazon Fire tablets.

~~~
detaro
Yes, and if they sell AOSP-based devices they then can not sell any other
device with the Google components.

Or sell a device using only some of the things Google wants to make mandatory,
but replacing others with their own.

That way they keep AOSP-based products on the fringe, since only niche
manufacturers can afford to make them, and stop manufacturers trying to
make/integrate better replacements for Google services. That's anti-
competitive, that's the problem.

------
drc0
and yet I still cannot uninstall facebook from samsung phones.

~~~
vetinari
We all have different problems. I cannot install Facebook or Messenger on a
Sony phone _.

_ due to a permission, that used to be defined by Sony in pre-Android 7 and
now is defined by Facebook, i.e. by app with different signature. The old
permission definition still lingers on the phone and the only way to get rid
of it is to reset the phone to factory settings. Which I'm obviously not going
to do.

------
jmarinez
The way Google's response is written is perhaps a sample of Pichai's
application for White House Correspondent in the Trump administration.

The argument is so ill worded its mindbugling. When did "open platforms"
become synonymous with bundling?

What the EU has done is call the bs in Google's speak.

@Pichai - if you and all your high concentration of PhDs can't come up with a
better business model than tracking and mind-controlling people, then yes,
charge. Charge what you think Android is worth. We will evaluate the offering
against our liberty.

Well done EU!!

------
AndrewKemendo
Go back and watch every WWDC.

You'll see that they consistently say that iOS updates are always free. There
is a reason they say that, it's not be accident or idle words.

It's because the idea of a free OS upgrade for non FOSS is non-standard.
Android moving to paid, means they would be like the overwhelming majority of
business models for OS updates (Windows, MacOS).

It also means that they were unable to successfully monetize/subsidize their
OS over the long term - arguably the crowning achievement of Google - whereas
Apple has been able to eat their own dogfood and make it more or less a
singular product.

~~~
plttn
To be clear: when they say paid, it would be a license to install Android as
the OEM, not the end user directly paying for Android.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
And then what happens when a new upgrade comes through? It's just a one time
OEM installation cost for eg Samsung etc...? Your carrier going to bill you
for the update?

The costs would get passed to the consumer no matter what though.

