Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Antitrust Case Against Google Thrown Out of SF Court

Posted by timothy on from the like-the-swiss-miss-marshallow-scam dept.

Mark Wilson (3799011) writes "Just a few days ago Google was threatened with legal action for anti-competitive behavior in Russia. While we don't yet know if that will amount to anything, there has been some better news for the search giant in the US. A San Francisco judge dismissed a case brought against the firm by two men who thought the inclusion of Google services in Android pushed up the prices of their handsets."

6 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. Inclusion would lower it if anything by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because Google provides Android free of charge (including a free device approval process) under the model that they'll make money back from people using their services.

    1. Re: Inclusion would lower it if anything by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Informative

      They have to provide Google with personal information which could have been sold instead.

      Even if you play it that way, you're still proving my point. If Google didn't figure you using those services into the price of the device, then they would charge the OEM for licensing the Android trademark, which means the manufacturer would charge you more money for the phone.

      Now if you could use the device without creating an account with Google there would be no additional charges.

      You can.

      When you receive a new Android phone it asks you to sign in, but you're allowed to skip that step entirely (there's a button for it.) You're then free to make calls, run apps, etc. So yeah, you very much can use the device without creating a Google account.

      You won't be able to download apps from the Play store, but you'll be able to sideload your own apps if you want (to include downloading the f-droid app store, Amazon app store, etc.)

    2. Re: Inclusion would lower it if anything by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      Is that really true? What are your alternatives?
      * dumb phone
      * iPhone that does mostly the same thing as an Android phone but costs more $$$ and delivers the same information, but to Apple instead of Google

    3. Re: Inclusion would lower it if anything by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      You just made Steve Ballmer throw a chair in disappointment.

  2. Re:Operator apps by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Newer versions of Android (I'm wanting to say 4.3 or above, but I'm not certain) allow you to disable those, which includes removing the icon for them and making sure they can't run. Open the app drawer, long press and hold the app icon and drag it to the "app info" (or sometimes just a lowercase i in a circle) and release. On that screen, tap the "turn off" button.

    If you want to remove the app entirely (so that it doesn't use up NVRAM space) then you can use something like Titanium Backup, but you have to be rooted for it to work.

    You can also remove Youtube and Maps, but doing so will probably break other apps (part of the video playback api is included in the youtube app, and any app that uses map services like Endomondo or Gas Buddy will not work if you remove Google Maps. The same is true of any app that uses the sync service API if you remove the gmail app.)

  3. Certainly it increased the price of the handsets by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2

    Certainly having those services included increased the price of the handset. But the same could be said for any of the software the carriers include on their phones (and usually prevent you from removing). Ditto even for hardware, having a camera or WiFi on the phone increases the price of the handset.

    None of which matters. The question in an antitrust case isn't whether it increased the price, it's whether Google used it's control of the Android OS to force vendors to include other Google services as a condition of using Android at all. And the answer to that question is no, Google doesn't do that. Amazon's phone runs Android without having Google services pre-installed (although you can install them yourself). The Kindles are a really good example, they run Android without any of the Google stuff at all and there isn't even any way of installing the Google services. Several Chinese companies make Android phones without Google services. I even have that with my Galaxy S4: I flashed it with CyanogenMod, so I start out without any of the Google apps or services and have to bootstrap an installation of them myself if I want them. The only downside is that if you don't accept Google's terms for officially using Google Play Services and their apps, you can't use the related trademarks for much except referring to those apps. So no, on antitrust grounds Google's OK because they simply aren't using their monopoly on Android (although technically they don't even have a monopoly, see CyanogenMod and AOSP) to force other Google services on manufacturers, carriers or users. In fact Google isn't even being as strict as they could be legally. They'd be within their rights to deny any use of the Google services and apps except where the vendor had the full license, but Google doesn't go that far because they realize it'd be a) stupid because it would annoy users who'd then shy away from Google completely and b) not in their best interests because it'd prevent Google customers from using Google services which would reduce Google's revenue. So all they do is say "You want to use our logos and brands and have access to all the official tools? You need to take our package. Otherwise, you'll have to install things by hand like anybody else." (well, not completely by hand since once they've done it once they can just clone the firmware image and flash it straight into the phones).