Finding Fault With the Low, Low Price of Android

bonch writes "Google's accusation of patent abuse toward its competitors has generated many responses, some of which have asked whether Android's free price is anti-competitive. Drawing comparisons to Microsoft's antitrust trial, in which they were accused of giving away Internet Explorer to drive competitors out of the browser market, Thurrott argues that Google's rivals are 'leveling the playing field' through patent fees by removing an artificial price advantage funded by monopoly search revenues. 'One could argue that Google is using its dominance in search advertising to unfairly gain entry into another market by giving that new product, Android, away for free. Does this remind you of any famous antitrust case?'"

Comments

This is why we can't have anything nice

[Haedrian]

Its free. Lets be happy about it.

Oh noes, its ruining my ability to sell stuff. Lets attack their patents to ruin it. Its got nothing to do with Microsoft's antitrust trial - that was something bundled with a sold product - this is something free which Google is using to sell something else (apps for example). Its kinda like how certain open source stuff works.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[zero.kalvin]

The analogy is flawed, they can't compare Android to IE. IE was shipped with WinOS. WinOS was the more or less the only used OS out there ( I mean for the general population) , that's why it was anti-competitive to give for free ( or why it was anti-competitive by MS ). Now the case with Android is that it does not enjoy a monopoly, the hardware is diverse, and on the same hardware provider ( Like HTC for example) is offering different OS. If they want to offer it for free then it's not the Open Handset Alliance's problem, if others want to out compete Android, then they must offer something distinguished so that people will consider paying for it. It is the same more or less with Linux on the desktop.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[rudy_wayne]

The price of Internet Explorer was never the real issue. What created anti-trust problems for Microsoft was telling computer manufacturers that they couldn't install any other browser on the computers they sold.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[unrtst]

Agreed, but more importantly (IMO), they aren't bundling Android with their "monopoly" produce of search.

Microsoft didn't just give IE away for free... they took their dominant position of OS distribution, and bundled in a free-as-in-beer IE, AND (initially) did not provide any way to remove it. They also provided major "incentives" (read; deterrents) to hardware distributors to encourage them to only ship Windows.

Google is not providing any additional incentives to handset makers who use Android. And many of those (ex. HTC) make just as many handsets that run other OS's, and push/market them equally. When Dell started selling some boxes with linux on them, it was only a couple, and they were underpowered; ditto for their no-os choices; and the price difference was not the equal of the cost of a Windows license.

Google's offering is also free-as-in-freedom, which IE was not. You can argue about v3.0 if you like, but it's not officially in distribution yet, and the source to IE was never free.

Also, when you go to google.com, you don't have to use Andoid, and it's not pushed on you either. A more comparative example - when a mobile user goes to google.com, they can still use the site just as well as if they came from Andoid. When a Netscape user went to Windows Update, it simply did not work - and still does not work - it requires IE.

Can some similarities be drawn? Yes. Fortunately, by doing so, it should be obvious that they are actually making the right decisions with how to distribute this product, as opposed to the many anti-competitive choices that Microsoft made.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'd have to look it up to be certain (and who has time for that?), but I think the main complaint is that they intentionally designed the browser to be inseparable from the OS's GUI. So not only was it bundled with Windows, it was also impossible to remove. But in those days I'm sure they didn't think twice about strong-arming manufacturers to keep other browsers out as well.

IIRC correctly there was additionally the complaint that Microsoft designed Windows to crash Netscape.

Basically there were all sorts of different ways Microsoft was (rightly) accused of anti-competitive behaviors. Pick and choose your favorite.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[postbigbang]

And it was a lie; it was removable and not intrinsic to the operation of the OS. Microsoft just *wanted* it that way after standing on the shoulders (and farting on the head) of Netscape.

The overall argument doesn't hold water. Free is fine. There are other Linux derivates on smartphones and tablets NOW with a similar price. Does Google do other evil stuff? Yeah, including not defending Android from litigation foisted on its OEMs.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[sjames]

Exactly. Google in no way forbids Samsung or HTC from installing iOS on other phones in their product line. OTOH, APPLE forbids that. Also MS retained all rights in IE, they just happened to set the price at free. Google has GPLed Android. The practical difference is that they can't wipe out the competition and then jack the price up to $1000/unit on the existing product.

This is nothing more than oxygen tank makers claiming that free air is an unfair infringement on their profits.

That or they're well aware that their behavior is just short of mustache twirling and they are trying to talk their way into a good night's sleep.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[icebraining]

Google Search is a much, much less dangerous monopoly than Windows is or ever was, because they don't really have a way of locking you in. The cost of switching search engines is close to zero, while the same can't be said for OSs, especially since they have exclusive and widely used applications like MS Office.

Google's dominance in the online advertisement market seems way more dangerous to me.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[Patch86]

And Apple sells iPhones with iTunes & Safari pre-installed, and Microsoft sell Windows phones with Bing search tools and probably some mobile form of IE. What's your point?

On an Android phone, I can install many different browsers (as many as anyone could care to programme). I can use Bing on it, and if Apple wanted to release an iTunes product (I don't know if they have), I'd be able to use that too.

What we're talking about here is Google funding their software with a non-standard funding model (that is, using mobile advertising revenue rather than point-of-sale prices). There's nothing stopping the others companies doing the same (not least Apple, who we're told time and time again by their fans that they're slaughtering the competition in terms of market share, or Nokia, who were number one in market share for a very long time). They're all just complaining that their business model is being trumped by someone else's business model, and they want the law of the land to fix it for them- which is not what the law of the land is for.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[grahamm]

Linux is free and Windows has to be paid for. So using this same argument, Linux should be the dominant PC Operating System, but it is not - Windows is. Therefore being free cannot be the only reason an OS is the dominant one.

Re:This is why we can't have anything nice

[hey!]

You're not incorrect, but you are missing the point.

What's at issue isn't whether primary monopoly (desktop OS or search) is legally obtained. What's at issue is whether once obtained that monopoly is used to gain monopolies in other markets.

The issue with the browser isn't primarily the price; it isn't even really whether or not IE was an intrinsic and inseparable part of Windows. The issue in the Microsoft/Netscape case is whether MS used its desktop monopoly power to take control of the market Netscape was in. There's documentary evidence that this was Microsoft's intent.

So the analogy's validity hinges on this question: did Google use its search engine monopoly to enter the mobile OS market or eject other players from that market?

I think the answer is no. Google doesn't prevent other mobile OS's such as iOS from using Google services, and the APIs for Google services are open and documented. Google search is the primary search engine on my iPod touch, and GMail, Google Maps and Google Earth all work fine on it. Nor are users of Android devices tied to Google services. One of the hallmarks of Android's architecture is how easy it is to replace built-in services like contact management. It is possible that some handset makers may be tied to Google's services contractually as part of an Android co-marketing or technical support agreement, but if they don't want Android they aren't barred from Google's search. And if they wanted to go their own way entirely, say make a Microsoft service-centric Android phone without Google help, they could, although they'd have to stay clear of using any Google trademarks.

Having a monopoly in one area does restrict you in others, but not to the point where you have to price and package your products to suit your competitors. It just means you can't use that monopoly to bar access to the market to your competitors.

Giving away, not bundling

[Superken7]

I assume that the author quoted in the summary refers to Internet Explorer, which was bundled and forced down the user's throats, as you could not even uninstall it or the Operating System would stop working.

How can this be compared to Android, which is just an open source project? CHOICE remains, as far as I know.

Gee, another Microsoft shill

[HBI]

Haven't we seen enough of these paid shills over the years to understand their point of view? They get paid money by Microsoft to influence opinion so that Microsoft can sell more stuff. They are corrupted by the money, so it isn't an honest opinion. Therefore, why pay attention?

I suppose some variety from the usual Florian dreck is nice, though.

Re:Gee, another Microsoft shill

[Haedrian]

"win super site . com"
"Supersite for Windows"

Come now, this website sounds very reputable and not at all biased on the side of Microsoft.

Obviously not the same

[hilather]

While Android may be free (if you exclude the price to use the android market) it is still very different from the Internet Explorer case. Internet Explorer is bundled with the Windows operating system, so its installed already whether you like it or not. Android is a choice by the manufacturer and a relatively cheaper choice then the competition. Manufacturers CHOOSE to use Android, and consumers CHOOSE to use Google for their search queries. Nobody is being forced into anything.

Terrible

[DanTheStone]

Thank you, Slashdot, for informing me of a website I never, ever, want to read again.

Re:open source attack

[icannotthinkofaname]

Agreed. I'll believe these claims about Android being anti-competitive when those same accusers also declare intention to sue entities like Canonical, who also give away superior software for free on a regular basis.

'anticompetitive'

[roman_mir]

In today's world there is only one meaning of the world 'anticompetitive', and it means: didn't pay the politicians enough to be left alone to do business as one sees fit.

So what if somebody is giving away free product? How about a free OS altogether? If they can do this and not go out of business, they should and consumers are the winners, not losers in this game. If the competition can't do anything about it, then it sucks for the competition. If the competition goes out of business because of it, it sucks for them. If eventually the company has to push prices above 0, this will just signal the market that there is a possibility to compete on non-zero price again.

Shill

[srh2o]

Paul Thurott is an unabashed shill. Nothing to see here move along