
EU hits Google with second antitrust charge - alsutton010203
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-antitrust-idUSKCN0XH0VX
======
zanny
The best possible outcome I could see from something like this is the opening
up of the Play Store ecosystem to third party Android forks.

The contention is over Google licensing Android branding and its proprietary
apps running on top of the AOSP and requiring them all be shipped together.
The problem isn't the OS itself, it is the Play Store hegemony and the fact
you cannot reasonably ship an Android phone without it - nobody would buy it.
But the store is a proprietary and effectively closed app ecosystem completely
under Google's control, thus the issue of monopoly exploitation.

At least, I hope. If they are seriously considering the whole OS as a trust
issue that is insane. Anyone can fork or reuse the component parts below the
Google app layer with the Apache 2 license. There are even projects like
[http://www.shashlik.io/](http://www.shashlik.io/) to run Android apps
natively on other systems. The only part of the Android ecosystem that in any
way really violates user freedoms (besides the proprietary POS blobs every
phone manufacturer shoves into a forked Linux kernel with oodles of GPL
violations) is the Google apps themselves, but you can always pull a
Cyanogenmod and ship a phone without those apps installed.

~~~
wnevets
>. The problem isn't the OS itself, it is the Play Store hegemony and the fact
you cannot reasonably ship an Android phone without it - nobody would buy it.

isn't this what amazon does?

~~~
pjc50
And as a result they have terrible sales:
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/26/amazon-
fi...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/26/amazon-fire-phone-
sales-data)

~~~
wnevets
Is that really because of the amazon store?

>There were many interesting anomalies in the launch of the Fire Phone. The
$200 price tag for a 32GB version on an AT&T contract – the same price range
as the iPhone 5S or Samsung GS5

Their tables are doing much better.

[http://www.geekwire.com/2016/50-fire-tablet-vaults-amazon-
in...](http://www.geekwire.com/2016/50-fire-tablet-vaults-amazon-into-3rd-
place-behind-only-apple-and-samsung-but-it-wont-last/)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Their tablets are primarily sold as e-Readers. The app store isn't a primary
need, and they don't really directly compete with Android tablets, even though
they're similar.

------
turaw
Just digging through the fact sheet released by the European Commission [1] to
gain a more concrete understanding of what the investigation is trying to turn
up. Quotes are heavily edited; please read the full document before forming
opinions :3

Licensing of Google’s proprietary apps:

The Commission seeks to ensure that _manufacturers are free to choose which
apps they pre-install on their devices_.

Anti-fragmentation:

The Commission has found evidence that Google's conduct prevented
manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices based on a competing Android
fork ... In doing so, _Google has also closed off an important way for its
competitors to introduce apps and services, in particular general search
services_ , which could be pre-installed on Android forks.

Exclusivity:

The Commission takes issue not with [financial incentives to ... smartphone
and tablet manufacturers ... on condition that they exclusively pre-install
Google Search] in general but with the conditions associated with Google's
financial incentives, in particular with the condition that the financial
incentive is not paid if any other search provider than Google Search is pre-
installed on smart mobile devices.

[1]: [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_MEMO-16-1484_en.htm)

------
epalmer
In the US here. I just went from being an iphone user of long standing to a
android user mostly because I want google apps over at least iphone apps.
Especially the map apps. I did install firefox asap on my nexus 6p but I use
chrome and firefox both.

I love the bundle. I was happy with the iphone bundle but I did not love it.

My youngest daughter is very happy I came over to the darkside. She has been
an Android user for a few year.

~~~
u_me_him
You can get all the google apps in the iphone

~~~
thesimon
But you can't set Google Maps as the default map application or Chrome as the
default browser. In fact, Chrome is basically only a nice wrapper around
Safaris engine.

~~~
EvanPlaice
Chrome on IOS uses Webkit, it's basically a skin over Apple's outdated browser
engine that crashes frequently. This is due to Apple Store restrictions, not
technical reasons.

------
thrownaway2424
"The stakes are higher for Google in the Android case as it made about $11
billion last year from advertising sales on Android phones through its apps
such as Maps, Search and Gmail, according to estimates by financial analyst
Richard Windsor."

I think it's safe to say that this analyst has no idea.

------
NiKMic
I'm not sure if I am understanding it well. Does the EU have an issue with
Google Chrome coming pre-installed with Android? In that case, shouldn't
Microsoft face the same penalties since IE/Edge comes pre-installed on the
Windows OS? I believe that these pre-installed apps can't be uninstalled
(because it might happen that you end up with no browsers on your phone), but
would making the app uninstallable solve this issue? I know that on Windows I
only use IE to install Chrome, then I ignore it for ever.

I think that it is only fair that Android are allowed to bundle soft of their
software with each Android release. Then again, I hate bloat ware so I kind of
understand that point of view too. Maybe Android versions can ship a blank OS
(no pre-bundled apps) and you have the option to opt-in to a 'suggested'
package which would include apps such as Chrome, search function etc.

I'm not 100% sure I understood the EU commission's problem here (or rather why
they targeted specifically Android/Google). Feel free to correct me where I am
wrong.

~~~
kyrra
Details are in the EU's press release: [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-1492_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-1492_en.htm)

The key points:

> requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome
> browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on
> their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;

> preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on
> competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;

> giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on
> condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.

~~~
Bjartr
It's the second and third points that I take issue (with Google) on. The first
seems a reasonable way to try to ensure that if manufacturers want to benefit
from the ecosystem Google has built they have to provide users with the
experience Google intended. Less than that can reflect poorly on Google if the
manufacturer provided ecosystem integration is lackluster or even
intentionally restricted.

The other two points are problematic because they apply restrictions to
business decisions the manufacturer can deliver independent of how those
offerings do or do not rely on the ecosystem Google developed and are
therefore Google leveraging its business position to reduce consumer choice in
its favor.

~~~
zmmmmm
I don't really have a problem with Google giving incentives for exclusivity of
Google Search on devices. As long as that's voluntary for carriers / OEMs to
enter into and other search alternatives have the same opportunity then that's
just business. In a way I would see it as more of a problem if Google was
requiring it without giving incentives. That would be evidence of an abuse of
market power.

Like you I do potentially have a problem with the second point - depending on
the details. I think Google has good technical reasons to take measures to
prevent fragmentation of Android. Incompatible ecosystems arising would have
very real negative consequences for the very competition that the EU is trying
to protect. (as in, the only reason there IS competition amongst Android OEMs
is because there IS an OS with strong compatibility protections). What I don't
think they can do is level those protections at a whole company level - you
can't say "Acer can't make a variant of Android if they are also shipping a
phone with Google Services". Now I would be OK with it if there's real
potential for harm to the ecosystem - if Acer is shipping the phones which are
incompatible and claiming they run "Android", for example. But if they clearly
fork it as a separate OS, put out their own SDK with separate APIs etc. then
Google has no business telling them not to do it. So even this one I could go
either way on depending on the exact details of the circumstances.

------
blisterpeanuts
From the article: _Complainant FairSearch said Google was hindering the
development of versions that might lead to new operating systems able to
compete with Android, despite launching it as an open source project._

Is this the basis of the charges? That Google, by requiring the bundling of
its own (free) apps and search engine, is preventing some obscure company from
_potentially_ developing a _potentially_ competitive OS?

EU seems to regard Google's insistence on a uniform OS with certain basic
services common to every device that calls itself Android as "harmful to the
consumer". Even though more forking of Android would lead to more
fragmentation, which most of us would agree is _bad_ for the consumer.

I fail to see what crime Google has committed, other than to run afoul of a
bunch of bureaucrats who have nothing better to do than regulate, tax, and sue
private companies for being too successful, at the behest of tiny competitors
who are unable or unwilling to succeed through innovation.

------
kuschku
The actual issue the EC argues against – counter to many comments here – are
the compatibility test suite issues.

If you want to sell at least one phone with the play store, all your other
phones have to come with it, too.

You can’t just sell 50% with Kindle-Android, and 50% with Google Android.

This is severely hurting innovation and leads to an even larger monopoly.

~~~
kilotaras
And if people still want to compare it to iPhone, imagine Apple having Samsung
sign the agreement to not manufacture phone screens for anyone that's not
Apple.

------
cromwellian
I just came back from China, in which most of the phones I used did not have
Google Play, or Play Services, and had replacements for everything.

If you try to use an phone with Google Play in China, you need a VPN, since if
the app calls things like location services, it'll get blocked, for example,
Taxi hailing apps could not retrieve the location, however with a native-
phone, they work.

Needless to say, the experience of the fork of all of these services is
inconsistent between devices and makes it less easy to move between phone
vendors. One paradoxical outcome could be that you could get locked into
XiaoMi, Huawei, etc.

Also, the experience of 9 different appstores is kind of jarring. I think it
would be better if apps simply worked like the Web, and could be safe enough
to stream-through and purchased through distributed payment systems.

~~~
takno
I'd go back to a feature phone rather than locked into Xiaomi. Even with
access to the Google apps it's a disaster area

~~~
newjersey
I've never seen a xiaomi phone in person. It looks pretty good from the
website. Care to elaborate about your experience?

~~~
takno
The phone is beautiful, but the OS is a weirdly ham fisted attempt to make
android look like iOS. In the case of notifications for example they've
restricted them to a single line and no in-notification buttons. Then they've
added a bunch of apps that can't be disabled. I regularly get a notification
that one of my sim cards (with no credit) cannot be activated, so they're
trying to link to something I haven't asked for, and there's a loud daily
notification that there is something called hidden folders which I should
definitely want to know about. All of this is still stuck on android 4, even
though the phone was released significantly after 5

~~~
newjersey
Thank you for your reply. It seems the mi 4 will get the marshmallow based
miui 7 according to
[http://en.miui.com/thread-213606-1-1.html](http://en.miui.com/thread-213606-1-1.html)
but clearly not for all devices especially the note.

Can you get cyanogenmod or something?

------
jbob2000
Totally implausible scenario, but what would happen if Google were to say "to
hell with this" and just completely pull out of the EU? Like full-stop,
nothing Google touching the EU.

Would there be riots? Would governments try to force Google back? Like, are
they so essential to digital life that a complete withdrawal would cause some
amount of chaos?

And if that's the case, isn't an antitrust suit a bit disingenuous? Isn't that
like saying "hey, you guys are dominating over here, we want you to stop, but
we also are going to continue to reinforce your dominance by continuing to use
all of your services"?

~~~
LunaSea
All the Google services would be replaced by (at first lower quality) European
versions. This would create a huge investment and tech sector growth wave.

One of the best things to happen to the European tech scene since the
beginning of the Internet.

You can see this happening in Russia, China and India although for different
reasons.

Even if this case doesn't change anything I think we will see Google's
involvement be reduces drastically in the next 5 years due to European Union
laws and restrictions.

~~~
sievebrain
All? At first, lower quality?

I think you massively underestimate how much investment is required to produce
even a basic search engine, let alone one that eventually catches up to what
Google has produced. And that's just search. Now throw in Gmail, Maps,
Android, Chrome, etc ... these are international collaborations for a reason.

~~~
pjc50
There are plenty of replacements for all of those except Android. Multiple
browsers, various mapping companies (including OpenStreetMap), multiple email
providers, multiple browser vendors.

There's also Bing, and the various ancient abandoned former greats of search:
Altavista (now Yahoo), Lycos.

~~~
nostrebored
Pretending that things come close to the richness of features in GMaps is
ridiculous. Topographical maps for cyclists, amazing transit maps with
descriptions of stops, reliable use internationally (google maps is still
amazing in places like Indonesia) and a generally good list of hours,
restaurants, queries like 'near me'... I think that other products are far and
away worse every time that I am linked to them.

Even people on HN who mention trying to use other search engines talk about
having to frequently come back to google to find the result that they need.
Whether that's us 'learning to Google' or Google being a superior product is
up for debate.

------
dang
There is a parallel post discussing Google's response at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11533469](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11533469).

------
known
Sounds rational.

"European Union antitrust regulators said that by requiring mobile phone
manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser, the
U.S. company was denying consumers a wider choice of mobile apps and stifling
innovation."

------
mtgx
Read EC's own press release instead:

[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-1492_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-1492_en.htm)

------
sschueller
What about Apple?

~~~
givinguflac
What about them? I don't think you understand the factors that are required
for antitrust consideration. Android is like 80% of the market in Europe- you
really think Apple is at all in the same foothold there?

~~~
izacus
Note that criteria for anti trust action differ between EU and US. In EU
market share isn't the only defining factor.

------
EGreg
Woohoo say the bureaucrats, $8B for the EU which they can spend on their stuff
now.

~~~
x0x0
The temerity of those Europeans. Demanding companies that do business in
Europe comport with European law!

------
eptcyka
Please do not submit links to mobile versions of the article.

~~~
dang
I assume people are submitting from their phones, where it would be hard not
to. We always change these to the canonical URL when we see them.

------
Mikeb85
I'm curious exactly how they figure Google is abusing their position, when you
can change all the default apps and search to anything you want, and
manufacturers can create a fork and do anything they want with it (witness
Ubuntu Phone, Firefox OS, Cyanogenmod, Amazon Kindle Fire OS or whatever it's
called, etc...). All Google is requiring is certain conditions to be able to
call it 'Android', not unlike Mozilla and Firefox branding.

~~~
kuschku
> and manufacturers can create a fork and do anything they want with it

That’s exactly what Google prohibits.

If you want to sell one or two phones with the Play Store, all your other
phones have to adhere to Google’s rules, too.

You can’t ship 50 phones with Play Store and 50 phones with Kindle-Android.

Amazon couldn’t use any of the major OEMs for building their Kindle devices
for this same reason.

