Slashdot Mirror
Google Faces Anti-Trust Probe In Russia Over Android
First time accepted submitter Mark Wilson writes Google has a new battle on its hands, this time in the form of a potential anti-trust probe in Russia. Yandex, the internet company behind the eponymous Russian search engine, has filed a complaint to the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS). Yandex claims that the US search giant is abusing its position by bundling Google services with Android. It claims that users are forced into using the Google ecosystem including Google Search, and that it is difficult to install competing services on smartphones and tablets. There are distinct echoes of the antitrust lawsuits Microsoft has faced for its bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows.
That's why you can't stop using google, or have any other choices, or even change the search engine simply by yourself.
I'm pretty sure that yandex knows how to do all this, so claiming it's "difficult to install" must mean "difficult to compete".
E
There is a post (in Russian) that explains Yandex's position better.
It's quite long-winded, but boils down to the fact that several phone manufacturers were told that they will be globally denied access to Google services if they ship a Russian regional version with Yandex's competing services pre-installed.
It's not just a matter of "in Russia, choose between having Google Play / Google services and Yandex", but "try to pre-install competitors in one market and we won't give you Google Play access anywhere".
Google is linking several products tightly together - which is what Microsoft was taken to task for doing.
You can't ship a device with the Google Play store installed or available without also being required to have the default search engine for the handset set to Google. Two unrelated products linked by an exclusive requirement (exclusive being it excludes other products).
Android is fast becoming the only realistic third party handset OS you can source as a handset manufacturer - Apple doesn't license IOS, Windows Phone isn't viable for a lot of people, Blackberry are ... well, Blackberry, and the rest are bit players with no market penetration at all.
Sure, you can go with a lesser known app store, but you lose a good chunk of apps in the process. So its either go with the popular app store on the popular handset OS and live with restrictions on unrelated things, or go on your own and effectively marginalise yourself.
So tell me, in what world did Google tying the default search engine (and thus ad displays) to the use of an unrelated product on the most successful licensable OS become acceptable?
Let me be the first to say that Yandex sounds like a bunch of whiny losers if this is their comparison. Google isn't imposing anti-competitive contracts on OEMs and using secret APIs to give their products a home turf advantage. They've open sourced the entire OS and most of the problems getting a competing product on an Android device is due to OEM malfeasance.
If Microsoft had competed with Be and Netscape back then like this, I'd be running Firefox on BeOS R10.5 not Windows 7.
... which means what for Google's bottom line? What is the ad revenue in Russia at this point? I'm guessing it is less then what google gets from Spain. So... who cares.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
For me, it is very, very sad, but Google seems to be becoming a very abusive company. The days of "Do no evil" seem to be ended.
Or are the rules different in Russia, that you don't have to be a monopoly in order to come under antitrust regulations?
Thay the chairman of Google is Richard Stallman . They do not do evil . They are a non profit organaization truly commited to a better world . Its the Free software foundation thats making those spyware phones only for world dominion . Such an ignorant world .
..
____________
Breaking news : Scientists have now mapped the gene that makes them map genes.
It does indeed sound similar to the unbundling issues that Microsoft had in the EU. The solution was Windows N, which I actually rather like. It's the same as normal Windows, but without Media Player and Media Centre which I don't use anyway. As an added bonus you don't need updates that target WMP and WMC specifically either, and don't get prompted to upgrade them whenever a new version comes out.
It's a shame more manufacturers don't ship it, but I suppose from their perspective they want a media player to be installed by default and can't be bothered to find and support one themselves.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
...is jab in the back with an AK-47.
At this moment of global history, can anyone take a Russian anti-trust probe seriously?
Between Putin's crony capitalism, the sheer amount of corruption in Russia and the geopolitical conflict between Russia and the West there's a whole laundry list of reasons to not believe that an anti-trust probe of Google has is honestly motivated.
So iPhones should be banned outright since you need to jailbreak to make these changes?
If you don't like play services, then replace them. Android is there, in the open for you to modify.
I'm not sure how this complaint can even get made when what Apple is doing with iOS is 1000x worse in terms of restrictive behavior.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Microsoft also had put on it the restriction that that they were no longer allowed to restrict what OEMs could install with the OS they shipped to the end user - sounds familiar, doesn't it?
As I understood it the difference is that Internet Explorer was a web browser that could not be uninstalled, and while individuals could and did install other web browsers, the Microsoft OS only used Internet Explorer to do its updates/upgrades via Internet Explorer.
While in this case, the issue is choice of search engine in the Android OS. And that can be (and is) changed by the individual. Unlike the Microsoft case, upgrades occur through the OS not the choice of search engine. There is no vendor lock in, only a default choice.
That's a completely different discussion, since this one is about handset makers and sellers being restricted in customising the handsets in order to promote tied products, while your point is about users being restricted in customising the handset themselves.
Actually, MS claimed that even they COULDN'T unbundle IE from Windows for many years. Only when it was demonstrated in court that it was possible did they backtrack.
The fact is that MS didn't give you a choice. The only choice was to suffer the install of IE, ignore it repeated attempts to be the default, and have to leave it installed forever handling some things that it never needed to be handling.
And then the EU quashed all that crap and made them put a browser choice screen on every PC in the EU for several years to counteract it.
"Difficult to install" = "Difficult to give hardware manufacturers a reason not to install".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I think one of the reasons Amazon's phone failed was because it was tightly coupled with the amazon echosystem and not the google echosystem---the same exact phone sold by "google" [e.g. marketed as "nexus" line] (even at the same price) would've done MUCH better in the market. It's not just "uh oh, you're bundling your services with the apps"... it's that people actually *want* those apps and services and often wouldn't buy the device otherwise.
Also, plenty of manufacturers roll their own Android, so what are they complaining about? If you don't like it, recompile your own and convince folks to use it.
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
exactly .. dont use a smart phone if u believe in the UNIX philosophy . And if u participate in systemd flamewars .. against systemd . I dont use a smart phone because I really dont need one !
So your saying that despite the fact that Google already provides an open source version of their OS, that they don't tie you to their store (or the bundled search), that they must also come out with a version that only bundles the things that you want; otherwise they are anti-competitive?
As you mentioned, it's not tightly integrated into the system as you can clearly get a version without Google services and search (which is a Google service).
It's like a company that makes spreadsheet software arguing that people who buy MS Office for word and powerpoint shouldn't have to be forced to have excel.
"Wat?" is a perfectly acceptable response to the GGP's schizophasia.
you can ship android WITHOUT google products though.
it's not really googles fault nobody wants to do it.
big companies that have done it include Amazon(kindle fire) and Nokia (Nokia X - and yes this is the part of nokia that microsoft bought so that line is effectively killed and never sold in euro/usa . ironically enough you CAN buy it in Russia. so you can buy an android device without google services, google search or any of that).
it doesn't ship with the google app store though, so what do they want? that google sells phones that come with some google but not all? what about the other appstores then?
and yes I've had a nokia x for some 8 months now.. it's not great and i did hack the google store into it. very cheap though.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
No link to obamasweapon.com? You're obviously one of THEM, trying to misdirect us.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You can disable the included applications on an Android device, but device manufacturers tend not to include the "root" tools needed to reclaim the SSD space that they occupy.
I don't know about Russian law, but in America, "Difficult to Compete" isn't illegal. "Having a monopoly" isn't illegal either, otherwise Microsoft would have a serious problem with Excel, and Adobe with Photoshop.
Abusing a monopoly is illegal. Saying "you can't have this unless you buy that" can be illegal. Saying, "we'll charge you more if you buy from our competitors" is illegal. Owning a large company and not donating to senators is technically not illegal, but it leaves you open to intense anti-trust scrutiny.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
With Microsoft there were only what two operating systems at the time, Windows and OS/2.
You forgot Mac OS classic.
With cell phones and tablets there are a lot more choices
Namely what? I see Android and Windows Phone. If you include iOS then you have to include Mac OS classic in your previous claim.
If iPhone market share rose to the point where they have a dominant market position that can be used to gain advantage in other markets, then the iPhone should indeed become the subject of antitrust investigation. Until then, no.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The OS is still open source. The kernel is GPL and the libraries and many frameworks are either BSD or some other Apache-like license. Some of the applications they put on top of the OS, like Google Play, GMail, etc, are closed. Even Chrome is mostly open, released as the Chromium project. And it's based on WebKit, anyway.
Basically, though, everything that isn't particularly tied into the google ecosystem is open. There's really nothing stopping Yandex or anyone else from making an Android version tailored to their needs. They could fork Replicant, maybe.
Microsoft was forcibly bundling IE with Windows. You couldn't have Windows without IE. But you can absolutely have Android without Google Play. It's one thing to say "Microsoft make it so you can have Windows without IE." It's something else entirely to say "Microsoft keep doing all the work on IE, but let us slap our name on it and point it at our services."
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
As I understood it the difference is that Internet Explorer was a web browser that could not be uninstalled, and while individuals could and did install other web browsers, the Microsoft OS only used Internet Explorer to do its updates/upgrades via Internet Explorer.
That was part of the argument, but the bigger part was that IE was free (subsidised by the OS cost) and bundled with the OS, which made it almost impossible to compete with. Netscape was the incumbent with the dominant market share in the browser market, but they charged $30 (I think), or free for noncommercial use. IE was free, which got them most commercial customers (they were paying for it with Windows and had no option to not pay for it if they didn't want it). It was preinstalled, which got them the non-technical users (who wouldn't think to install a different browser).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's not so much that people want the Google apps, it's that they want third-party apps. Have you ever looked in the Amazon App Store? It's a wasteland compared to Google Play. Google has successfully convinced people that selling an Android app means listing it in Google Play. This means that successful phones have to have Google Play installed, but if you want to preinstall Google Play then you have to also preinstall a big bundle of other Google stuff.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Because antitrust regulators generally don't care about companies with around 20% market share? The entire point of antitrust regulation is to ensure that there is a functioning market. If you have a small enough market share that you can't impose your will on the market without suffering a loss of sales, then there is no need for regulators to get involved. If you have the 80% market share that Android enjoys, then there's a lot more potential for evil.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's all about "Hey, we like Android but we don't want Google forced down our throats."
To be precise it's "Hey, we like the Google Play store (and perhaps other parts of the Google apps bundle; that's not clear) but don't want Google Search". Because you can absolutely use Android without Google. It's open source, Apache 2 licensed.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, on Android, but don't speak for Google. I'm not offering any opinions on the Russian complaint, just clarifying what they're complaining about, as I see it.)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Its all about Kiev and our sanctions. Its not a technical issue. Kleptocracy.
Err... no. There *were* other operating systems back in the days MS got busted for. Some of them ran on the same hardware as MS-DOS and windows, namely DR-DOS and CP/M 86.
Microsoft's apologists liked to float the myth that MS was busted for having a monopoly. That wasn't the case; they were busted for using anti-competitive practices that prevented the entry of competitors into "their" market. For example they would only allow manufacturers to sell DOS or Windows preinstalled if they didn't sell computers with competing products.
Google has never done that. If you are an Android phone manufacturer you can sell Windows phones as well. As a consumer you can change the search engine to Bing if you like; or if you prefer you can buy a phone that defaults to Bing. Manufacturers can and do sell tablets without the Google Play app store, or even with an alternative app store.
Having watched this situation develop over the years, I believe that the strategic significance of the Android platform to Google is this: Google looked at the developing mobile market and realized it couldn't survive if someone *else* managed to obtain monopoly power over mobile devices. An open source platform prevented anyone *else* from obtaining a platform monopoly.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Microsoft's intent was to charge for Internet Explorer as part of Microsoft Plus!. It was Netscape giving their browser away for free for non-commercial use which made that impossible.
This seems to be the fundamental difference between the US attitude and the rest of the world. In Europe the issue of Media Player having to be there and be the default media player as enforced by contract was an issue, which resulted in the Windows N editions. In the US that was never considered a problem.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So your saying that despite the fact that Google already provides an open source version of their OS
They don't have an open source version of their OS. That is, the open source version is limited, and missing a lot of functionality.
Then add them! Amazon seems to be doing just fine with Fire OS
So your saying that despite the fact that Google already provides an open source version of their OS
They don't have an open source version of their OS. That is, the open source version is limited, and missing a lot of functionality.
The only functionality it is missing is the stuff that yandex is complaining about Google bundling.
No, you don't get the automatic Google account provisioning in AOSP. Or Google Play. Or GMail. Or Google Calendar. etc.
Just what do you think a Google-less android would look like?
I don't get the complaint. The non-Google parts of Android are FOSS. Other companies even have made competing forks of it as a result. If MS had done the same thing with Windows back in the 90s there would have been no need for an antitrust lawsuit. If you wanted Windows without IE you could just recompile it yourself, and even sell it if you wanted to.
Probably not, because those apps depend on a lot of Google's other products. It's not just the play store to obtain those apps, it's also Play Services, Gmail, Youtube, and Maps. If you were to remove those apps, you'd actually break a lot of apps that get distributed via the play store.
- Without Play Services you'd break a LOT of apps as it provides a lot of API extensions not found in base Android (the reason these functions are built into Play Services rather than AOSP is so that Google can continue providing OS functionality updates even when the manufacturer will not.)
- Youtube provides video services to a lot of other apps.
- Google Maps provides mapping services to other apps (e.g. gas buddy, fitness trackers, etc.)
- Gmail provides a sync framework that some other apps use
You can disable these apps so that the icon disappears from the app drawer (it's only visible in settings > app info) which leaves the libraries behind and prevents the app from running, but if you were to remove them entirely then you'll break a lot of apps.
Verizon was certainly capable of loading their own app store, piles of Amazon cruft, Facebook, and much more typical carrier bloat. Who is the Verizon of Russia, and does this entity want Yandex or not?
Waaaahhhhh, we're too fucking stupid to take the android source code and modify it so that we can do what we wanttttt!!! Bwaaaaahhhh, Waahhhh Wahhhh /inserting-pacifier.
I want to make an Android phone that ships with the Google Play store and has Bing as the default search engine.
Can I do that?
That's effectively what they want to do here, but Google doesn't want that. If you have Play then you have to have google as the default search.
But no, of course it's down to stupidity on Yandex's part. I forgot that google can do no wrong. Carry on.
Sure, you can go with a lesser known app store, but you lose a good chunk of apps in the process.
Name a few?
The big problem you have is that more and more apps are building on the Google APIs, so beyond replacing gmail or the calendar, you have a big compatibility problem.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Clarification: Name a few apps that you cannot find in "lesser" apps stores.
... and the "difficulty" in changing the browser [...] is about the same as android.
I was under the impression (not that I've ever lowered myself far enough to use an iPhone) that any alternative browser you can get through the App Store is nothing more than a "skin" over the in-built Safari browser of iOS... no option for different rendering engines, etc. Was I mistaken in this understanding?
Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
It is just difficult to conceive why someone would even attempt to use other services on an Android phone. Essentially, the market does not see a need to do so. I agree....difficult to compete with free, works, awesome.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Is this an attempt at passing the Turing Test? If so, you FAIL!
Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
The big problem you have is that more and more apps are building on the Google APIs, so beyond replacing gmail or the calendar, you have a big compatibility problem.
I'll agree with this. I don't like the way Google is handling the whole Play Services thing.
I like the idea of having an auto-updated component of the API that works across OS versions. That is what is causing everybody to use it.
What I don't like is that this is closed-source and bundled with all the Google-specific stuff.
They really should have two pre-installed apps. One is called Google Play Services and it is EXACTLY that - APIs related to the Play store, or maybe some other Google-specific APIs as well (ones that don't fit into a specific app, like authentication and so on). That app can be closed service.
The other app should be some kind of Android Extensions app which is purely FOSS, and this provides stuff like webviews and all the logic you want to be easy to update. It shouldn't be tied to Google at all, other than Google being the main contributor. Being FOSS everybody could of course use it.
On the other hand, if I lived in Russia, I would use Yandex services for the simple fact they are taylored for Russia itself.
are they taylor swiffed as well?
Their main complaint here is not just the tie-in, but that it applies all across the regional markets. In other words, if some Android manufacturer makes a deal with Yandex to ship Yandex apps, or set Yandex as default search, on Android phones sold in Russia (which is quite reasonable, since many Russian users expect those anyway), they can no longer preinstall Google apps on their Android phones sold in US.
Google has never done that. If you are an Android phone manufacturer you can sell Windows phones as well. As a consumer you can change the search engine to Bing if you like; or if you prefer you can buy a phone that defaults to Bing. Manufacturers can and do sell tablets without the Google Play app store, or even with an alternative app store.
What Yandex seems to be claiming is that manufacturers are, in fact, strong-armed to decide whether they want to ship all their phones with Google Play, or none of them. They are specifically claiming that a manufacturer was prevented from entering into an agreement with them to pre-install Yandex software, because they want to ship phones in other countries with Play, and Google's terms for Play require that they ship it in all countries.
This. I'm in China for 2 months. I didn't think ahead that most of the features on my Android phone wouldn't work when I get here because all Google services are blocked.
It took me all of an hour to change my default search away from Google, Install an alternative app store, and replace all of my Google apps which require an online connection with an alternative.
4 weeks left here and I'll go through the process of re-googlefying my phone again. Though in theory I could do that now since the first app I downloaded from the alternate app store was OpenVPN.
Google has never done that. If you are an Android phone manufacturer you can sell Windows phones as well. As a consumer you can change the search engine to Bing if you like; or if you prefer you can buy a phone that defaults to Bing. Manufacturers can and do sell tablets without the Google Play app store, or even with an alternative app store.
What Yandex seems to be claiming is that manufacturers are, in fact, strong-armed to decide whether they want to ship all their phones with Google Play, or none of them. They are specifically claiming that a manufacturer was prevented from entering into an agreement with them to pre-install Yandex software, because they want to ship phones in other countries with Play, and Google's terms for Play require that they ship it in all countries.
Except that isn't quite true. Google doesn't stop Android phone manufacturers from shipping phones with Yandex installed. What phone manufacturers can't do is ship Android phones that doesn't have Google Apps (i.e. Search, Play Store, Mail, Calendar, Music and Maps) as the default. They certainly can bundle Yandex apps with their Android phones providing those apps are not shipped as the default instead of Google apps. Look at all the apps that are bundled in Samsung TouchWiz and HTC Sense UI.
You can't ship a device with the Google Play store installed or available without also being required to have the default search engine for the handset set to Google.
Yes you can. There was an active complaint by users a while back that Sprint (I think) were shipping Android devices with Bing as the default search provider.
What you can't do is ship the device with the non-google provided version of Android (i.e. Cyanogenmod) and have the Play Store preloaded. This is also while Google apps are a separate download for Cyanogenmod users.
Microsoft was taken to task for being a monopoly and then bundling apps anti-competitively. Google is not a monopoly and there are mobile devices a plenty with alternative OSes. Heck just look at China, a country where Android is the undisputed number 1 mobile OS, yet where Google is completely inaccessible.
Waaaahhhhh, we're too fucking stupid to take the android source code and modify it so that we can do what we wanttttt!!! Bwaaaaahhhh, Waahhhh Wahhhh /inserting-pacifier.
I want to make an Android phone that ships with the Google Play store and has Bing as the default search engine.
Can I do that?
That's effectively what they want to do here, but Google doesn't want that. If you have Play then you have to have google as the default search.
But no, of course it's down to stupidity on Yandex's part. I forgot that google can do no wrong. Carry on.
Google default engine is not baked into the phone and users can switch the default search engine to Bing if they like. That is easy to do. If you are going to jump on Google case because their apps are the default on their operation system then you should also take issue with (1) Apple whose services are the default on iOS and can't be changed. Not to mention, Apple generally doesn't allow third party apps that compete with their apps in the Apple Store. (2) Microsoft 8.1 operating system ships with Bing as the default search engine. (3) Amazon version of Android ships with Yahoo as the default search engine that can't be changed.
I think it's still severe enough. If they want to bundle those apps as the default in Russia, they should be able to do so without losing the ability to bundle Google apps by default in other countries.
I think it's still severe enough. If they want to bundle those apps as the default in Russia, they should be able to do so without losing the ability to bundle Google apps by default in other countries.
I disagree. I see no reason why Google should create exceptions. Phone manufacturers don't license Android on a per market basis. Android license covers the global market and if manufactures break the licensing agreement in one market then that should that be enough to invalidate the license to use Android in every market. Google can't have exclusions if they want users to have a uniform experience.
Well, why shouldn't phone manufacturers license Android on a per market basis? Or at least on a per device basis (and then sell a particular device only in one particular market)?
The problem is that this results in strangulation of local services that are otehrwise competitive in a regional market (because, for a particular country, they may well be better than Google's - e.g. Yandex Maps are generally better than Google Maps in Russia, so users would prefer them). The end result is Google monopoly everywhere. Why is that a good thing for the users?
Waaaahhhhh, we're too fucking stupid to take the android source code and modify it so that we can do what we wanttttt!!! Bwaaaaahhhh, Waahhhh Wahhhh /inserting-pacifier.
I want to make an Android phone that ships with the Google Play store and has Bing as the default search engine.
Can I do that?
That's effectively what they want to do here, but Google doesn't want that. If you have Play then you have to have google as the default search.
But no, of course it's down to stupidity on Yandex's part. I forgot that google can do no wrong. Carry on.
Google default engine is not baked into the phone and users can switch the default search engine to Bing if they like. That is easy to do. If you are going to jump on Google case because their apps are the default on their operation system then you should also take issue with (1) Apple whose services are the default on iOS and can't be changed. Not to mention, Apple generally doesn't allow third party apps that compete with their apps in the Apple Store. (2) Microsoft 8.1 operating system ships with Bing as the default search engine. (3) Amazon version of Android ships with Yahoo as the default search engine that can't be changed.
Right, but you're trying to change the argument - we all know that Microsoft's and Apple's policies on iOS and Win 8 are as they are and they get bashed for them all the time, but somehow it;s ok for Google to do this?
Sure you can change the search engine but *a vendor cannot set a different default out of the box if they want to also ship the Google Play store*. That is what this is about (among other things). Not whether you can change the default search engine as a user of the phone once you've bought it.
Oh, and just for completeness, on iOS: Settings > Safari > Search Engine > [pick one] (default is Google).
That's why you can't stop using google, or have any other choices, or even change the search engine simply by yourself.
I'm pretty sure that yandex knows how to do all this, so claiming it's "difficult to install" must mean "difficult to compete".
E
I am fortunate to be in Canada, where I can use optionally use the yandex search engine. It is as extensive or better than google. Please don't believe that google has exclusivity on intelligence and capabilities.
Right now, because my keyboard has Canada French layout, Google has decided I want their searches in French. I never selected that language, though the keyboard I use is standard for Quebec.
Google, stop being stupid.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada